Appeal No. 1999-0414
Application No. 08/625,352
“portion controller,” we will sustain the rejection of claim 11, and hence claims 12,
13 and 25, because, in our view, the broad language of claim 11 is anticipated by
Bergin.
Bergin clearly discloses a headset comprising an earphone 20 and a pad
22. The headband 12 is coupled to the pad 22 via stirrup 14 and ear dome 18.
The arrangement permits a user to urge the earphone against the user’s ear by
applying a force [as by pressing with the hand] to the earphone. The force is
transferred to a temporal region of the user through the pad 22. Note that the upper
part of pad 22 will contact the temporal region, i.e., a portion of the head above the
ears, of a user. There may be arguments as to whether only a fraction of the force
less than the whole of the force is transferred to the temporal region. However, the
broad language of the claim requires only that “a portion” of the force be transferred.
A “portion” may entail the whole, or a 100%, portion. We find nothing in the claim
that limits a “portion” to something less than the whole, notwithstanding this to be
appellants’ intention. Thus, whether or not only part of the force in Bergin is
transferred to the headband while most of the force is transferred to the temporal
region of a user, or whether, the full force, as argued by appellants, is transferred to
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007