Appeal No. 1998-2610 Page 6
Application No. 08/451,950
a support member 1" col. 3, ll. 16-17, of the ear microphone,
and large enough "to surround the periphery of an
electroacoustic transducer element 2," id. at ll. 19-20, of
the microphone. Furthermore, the spring 6 is shown as longer
than the support member 1. Fig. 4.
Similarly, the fibrous sleeve is large enough in diameter
to "enclos[e] the electroacoustic transducer element ...."
Col. 6, ll. 50-51. Furthermore, the sleeve 12 is shown as
longer than and having a diameter almost as great as that of
the support member 1. Fig. 12. Because Yoshii's coil spring
and fibrous sleeve are large enough to enclose the reference's
electroacoustic transducer element and longer than Yoshii's
support member, we are not persuaded that the reference
discloses the limitations of "[a] hearing protection earplug
comprised of materials with embedded metallic particles ...."
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 18 as anticipated
by Yoshii. We next consider the examiner's rejection relying
on Yoshimi.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007