Appeal No. 1999-1112
Application No. 08/683,705
anticipated by either Nourney or Wachi, the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over either one of Nourney or Wachi in view of Fishman and the rejection of claims 9 and
10 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 as being based on an inadequate written description.
Turning first to the rejections based, in whole or in part, on Nourney, we will not sustain these
rejections.
While Nourney is directed to an acoustic musical instrument, Nourney’s sensors, electroacoustic
transducers 3, are juxtaposed with the strings of the guitar for converting the oscillations of the strings
into electric audio signals. See the single figure and claim 1 of Nourney. The instant claims, however,
require the sensing of vibrations “from said structure.” In accordance with appellants’ arguments,
Figure 20, attendant description in the specification and appellants’ invocation of In re Donaldson, 16
F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994), appellants have established a distinction between
strings of an acoustic musical instrument (such as a guitar) and the housing, or “structure,” of the
acoustic musical instrument. As claimed, as disclosed, and as argued by appellants, a “structure”
precludes strings of an acoustic musical instrument. With such a distinction in mind, Nourney clearly
does not provide for the sensing of vibrations “from said structure”or for an actuator to “induce
structural vibration of the structure at the actuator location,” as claimed.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) over
Nourney nor will we sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007