Appeal No. 1999-0414
Application No. 08/625,352
into place, the force on the temporal region will vary from the portion of the force
applied to the temporal region when the latch 40 is not set and a force applied
against the ear cups would permit some movement in the headband. Thus, latching
element 40 would appear to act as a “portion controller,” as claimed, albeit not as
intended by the device shown in Figure 5 of the instant application.
Contrary to appellants’ position, we agree with the examiner that Urella’s
suggestion of employing the pad arrangement shown for the comfort of the user
would clearly have led the artisan to employ such a pad arrangement in other
headsets such as the one taught by Mirmilshteyn.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 5-7, 11-13 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to the rejection of claims 17, 18, 20, 27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, we will also sustain this rejection because appellants fail to argue the merits
of these claims apart from independent claims 14 and 26. At page 17 of the
principal brief, appellants state that since these claims are dependent on claims 14
and 26, “the reasoning set forth above in support of the patentability of claims 14
and 26 over the primary reference is submitted to support the patentability of claims
17, 18, 20, 27 and 30…” Since we have sustained the rejection of claims 14 and
26, we will also sustain the rejection of claims 17, 18, 20, 27 and 30.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007