Appeal No. 1998-0440
Application No. 08/351,578
Nonetheless, the examiner asserts (Answer, pages 3-4) that the
loudspeaker would have been obvious "since the driver circuit
of Tanizawa et al is not limited to driving only certain types
of loads, and a loudspeaker load is just one of many different
types of loads." Further, in the examiner's response to
appellants' arguments, the examiner states (Answer, page 5)
that the loudspeaker is "merely an intended use of appellants'
output stage rather than an actual feature thereof."
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 6-7) that the loudspeaker
is positively recited in the claim, and, therefore, is not
merely an intended use. We agree. The body of claim 6
recites a physical connection to a loudspeaker. Further,
Tanizawa discloses a logical gate circuit, which has no load
connected to the output. Accordingly, we find it difficult to
see how it would have been obvious to connect the output of
Tanizawa to any load, and particularly to a loudspeaker. The
examiner's lack of evidence supporting the obviousness of
connecting the output of a logical gate circuit to a
loudspeaker further indicates that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007