Appeal No. 1998-0412
Application No. 08/320,935
would they have suggested to the skilled artisan the
specifically claimed diameter of the tube that is inserted
into the external acoustic meatus.
Turning next to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
12 through 15 and 25, the examiner acknowledges (answer, page
6) that the sound guide tube attached to the hearing aid in
Bellafiore “does not disclose a space between the sound guide
tube and the external auditory meatus.” According to the
examiner (answer, page 6), Ward discloses “a space between the
guide and the external auditory meatus, for allowing
surrounding noises to enter the external auditory meatus.”
The examiner concludes (answer, page 6) that it would have
been obvious to the skilled artisan to use such a space
between the sound guide tube and the external acoustic meatus
in Bellafiore for the noted benefit. Appellant argues (brief,
page 21) that Ward is completely silent as to the sizing and
the spacing of the tube 60 so that surrounding noises may be
heard. We agree. For this reason, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 12 through 15 and 25 is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007