Appeal No. 1999-1112
Application No. 08/683,705
Nourney in view of Fishman since Fishman does not provide for the deficiency (i.e., vibrations from the
“structure” or an actuator for inducing “structural vibration of the structure at the actuator location”) of
Nourney.
However, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated
by Wachi, as well as the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Wachi
in view of Fishman.
In our view, the examiner presents prima facie cases of anticipation and obviousness in explaining
that Figure 12 of Wachi discloses a feedback circuit comprising elements 4, 7 and 8 physically located
within the acoustic chamber of a guitar. This feedback vibrates the acoustic chamber.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) over Wachi, appellants
never respond to this rejection. That non-responsiveness may be considered a waiver of any arguments
against the rejection and we could sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3 for this reason alone.
However, we consider the arguments made by appellants regarding Wachi as to the rejection of
claims 4-6, at page 12 of the principal brief, and apply this argument to claims 1 and 3-6.
Appellants’ sole argument with regard to the application of Wachi to the claims is that Wachi “fails
to even disclose an actuator that operates on the structure of the acoustic chamber” and, instead,
“discloses a speaker...which is mounted to project through a structure and emanate sound therefrom.”
Summarizing, appellants contend that “Wachi simply adds a speaker to a guitar body to provide added
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007