Appeal No. 1999-0891 Page 4
Application No. 08/676,484
The examiner asserts, "it would have been obvious ... to
have incorporated Tsukizoe Koichi's pair of speakers into
Morris's display system since this is an advancement for
Morris computer device [sic] to provide efficiency and
convenience for a blind user to hear the output from the
system." (Final Rejection at 3.) The appellants argue, "that2
the examiner can imagine a reason for incorporating the
secondary reference's stereophonic speaker system and
placement into the `461 patent does not impact upon the
obviousness question." (Reply Br. at 8.)
Claims 15-22 and 24 specify in pertinent part the
following limitations: "one pair of speakers at both sides of
the display element, the speakers being arranged along a
rotation axis of the display element and being physically
separated from each other at a predetermined space ...."
Similarly, claim 25 specifies in pertinent part the following
2"[A]n examiner's final rejection, which precipitates the
statutory right to appeal to the Board, 35 U.S.C. §134 (1988),
constitutes the ‘decision’ of an examiner for purposes of
§1.196(a).” In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553, 1556, 16 USPQ2d 1433,
1435 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(citing In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 492,
131 USPQ 263, 264 (CCPA 1961)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007