Appeal No. 1998-0440
Application No. 08/351,578
examiner has not elaborated as to the "design expedient."
Further, he has not provided any evidence of art recognized
equivalence in a device like Tanizawa's. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 13 and their dependents,
claims 10, 11, and 14 through 20, over Tanizawa.
Regarding Kurosawa and Kaminaga, the examiner merely
states that "[t]he differences between the claims and these
references would have been obvious ... for the reasons noted
above with regard to the section 103 rejection using Tanizawa
et al." We have carefully reviewed both Kurosawa and
Kaminaga, and we find no disclosure in either reference of a
loudspeaker, an analog differential amplifier (for claims 2
through 6), nor a DMOS transistor (for claims 8, 10, 11, and
13 through 20). Further, the examiner has provided no
evidence of obviousness for modifying either reference. Thus,
the examiner again has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection
of claims 2 through 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13 through 20 over
Kurosawa or Kaminaga for substantially the same reasons
explained above regarding Tanizawa.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007