Appeal No. 1998-2675
Application 08/779,024
that protects the microphone. Thus, the Examiner errs in
finding that Chaplin suggests using an expanded room in order
to protect the microphone under extreme conditions. Figure 5
of Chaplin shows a port P' connecting the volume 4' with the
volume of the duct 14, but it is not clear that such an
arrangement would necessarily cause a decrease in velocity, as
claimed. Figure 7 of Chaplin shows a perforated tube
surrounded by layers 5 of gas permeable thermal insulation
extending through a volume 4''', but while the noise can
penetrate the layers 5, it is again not clear that such as
arrangement would necessarily cause a decrease in velocity, as
claimed, because the layers 5 would interfere with the air
expanding freely into volume 4'''. However, figure 6 of
Chaplin shows an enlarged room in a duct and we consider that
teaching.
Appellants argue that Chaplin does not teach or suggest
reducing an air current velocity in order to suppress the
affect of the air current on the microphone and, thus, Chaplin
does not recognize the problem which is solved by the present
invention (Br6). Examiner states that recognition of
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007