Appeal No. 1999-1112
Application No. 08/683,705
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as relying on an inadequate
written description, the examiner contending that there is no support for the claimed microprocessor,
microcontroller or the application-specific integrated circuit.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that a pivotal issue in this case is the meaning to ascribe to “acoustic musical
instrument.” The examiner ascribes an extremely broad meaning to include any musical instrument
based on the reasoning that all musical instruments “when played provides resonant or acoustical
frequencies in the audible frequency range” [answer-page 4]. For their part, appellants urge that there
is a strict dichotomy between an “acoustic” musical instrument, which is “a musical instrument whose
sound is not electronically modified,” citing Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, and a non-
acoustic musical instrument which may include electronic instruments such as an electric guitar.
We agree with appellants. Since an applicant may be his own lexicographer, the meaning urged by
appellants is consistent with a dictionary definition of the term “acoustic” musical instrument and
appellants’ interpretation is not inconsistent with what is described in the instant specification, we hold
that an “acoustical musical instrument”, as claimed, precludes electrical instruments but does include
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007