Appeal No. 1999-0414
Application No. 08/625,352
movable sections,” as claimed.
Appellants argue that Mirmilshteyn does not disclose the claimed “rigid
structure…” However, appellants’ arguments appear to rely on the headband
structure of instant Figure 6 wherein the headband has relatively movable sections.
The claim language, however, does not require that the rigid structure having
relatively movable sections be on the headband itself. Rather, the claim
language recites a headset comprising a headband and a rigid structure having
relatively movable sections for limiting said variable dimension. Thus, the claim
language permits the rigid structure to be separate from the headband and
appellants’ position, at page 9 of the principal brief, that the reference discloses
that fixing means 17 and 18 are “not a part of headband 3,” is not well taken.
Mirmilshteyn’s disclosure of fixing the coupling member 8 relative to the headband
is not precluded by the language of instant claim 14. It appears that the instant
claim language is not so limited as appellants’ arguments would indicate.
We will sustain the rejection of claim 14, and of claims 15, 16, 19 and 21-24
which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mirmilshteyn.
Similarly, with regard to independent claim 26, we will sustain the rejection of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007