Appeal No. 1999-0414
Application No. 08/625,352
and it does not disclose the portion controller for controlling the portion of the force.
Appellants are correct in the assessment of the deficiencies of the primary
reference. The examiner recognized the deficiencies, brought in a secondary
reference to provide for those deficiencies and based the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
While appellants’ arguments are clearly based on the embodiment of the
invention shown in instant Figure 5 wherein the pad is shown at 47 and the
ratcheted slot arrangement allows for apportionment of the force, we do not believe
that claim 11 is limited to only the arrangement depicted in Figure 5. The headset
of Urella shows a pad connected to a headband through button snap elements 24.
The portion of the pad covering the button snap elements [Figure 2] appears to be
situated such as to touch the “temporal region” of the user. Alternatively, in Figure 1
of the reference, there is shown a lobe [only one such lobe can be seen in the
Figure but clearly there is one on each side] of the pad pointing in the downward
direction and this lobe would appear to touch the “temporal region” of the user.
When a force is applied to the earphone in Urella, this action would clearly exert
some, or a portion, of the force to the sections of the pad situated against the
“temporal region” of the user. By using latching element 40 to lock the headband
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007