Appeal No. 1999-0414
Application No. 08/625,352
103 as unpatentable over Mirmilshteyn in view of Bergin.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We turn first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Mirmilshteyn
and note that while appellants state that the claims do not stand or fall together
[principal brief-page 3], appellants’ arguments are directed to only independent
claims 1, 14 and 26. Accordingly, we will discuss independent claims 1, 14 and 26
and the claims dependent thereon will stand or fall with their respective parent
independent claims.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires the presence in a single prior
art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.
Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F2d. 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Turning to independent claim 1, this claim requires that the coupler between
the headband and the earphone comprises “a pivot having a torque resistance
opposing the rotation of said pivot intercoupling said headband and said earphone
constructed and arranged to require applying a torque exceeding a predetermined
threshold value to cause rotation.” Further, the pivot must include “a torque
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007