Appeal No. 1999-0414
Application No. 08/625,352
argue that in the free rotation position (push-button 30 pressed), since elements are
freely rotatable, the torque threshold value is merely set very low and any amount of
torque would overcome that threshold.
However, we do not view such an interpretation of Mirmilshteyn to be a fair one
since no torque resistance, as claimed by appellants, is intended. Moreover, there
would still be no “torque threshold level adjuster,” as claimed.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4 and 8-10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) over Mirmilshteyn.
Turning now to independent claim 14, we will sustain the rejection of this
broad claim as being anticipated by Mirmilshteyn. Clearly, the reference discloses
a headset comprising a headband 3 having an inverted U-shape, and having distal
ends defining an opening of variable dimension. The claim also calls for a “rigid
structure having relatively movable sections for limiting said variable dimension.”
When push-button 30 of Mirmilshteyn is pressed, coupling member 8 is allowed to
rotate relative to the headband and holder 6 is allowed to rotate relative to the
coupling member 8. This permits an adjustment of the headband for “limiting said
variable dimension,” as claimed. Further, the push-button 30 and the related
structure which permits this adjustment constitute a “rigid structure having relatively
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007