Appeal No. 1997-1409
Application 08/297,399
external surface of the ear as shown in figure 3 (col. 2,
line 64 to col. 3, line 1). Thus, the teachings of Huntress
are not relevant to the earplug of the present claim.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8
The Examiner finds that the difference between Falco
and the subject matter of claim 1 is the shape of the flange
elements and concludes that it would have been obvious to
make the flanges in Falco in the shape of a hollow truncated
cone in view of Huntress, Hill, or Baum (EA8). The Examiner
finds that Falco shows the included angle formed by the
intersection of two construction straight lines drawn so as
to contact the skirt is "between 50E and 85E" or "about 60E."
Appellant argues that the references do not show the
claimed angle range of between 50E and 85E (claim 1) or
about 60E (claims 4 and 8). It is argued that Falco shows
the rear ends of the hemispherical elements extending
parallel to the axis, so they have an included angle of 0E
(Br5).
While we agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to substitute cone-shaped elements for the
hemispherical elements in Falco, we agree with Appellant
- 11 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007