Appeal No. 1999-1112
Application No. 08/683,705
acoustics. It does not positively vibrate or excite the structure of an acoustic chamber”[principal brief,
page 12].
We disagree. At column 15, lines 8-12 and 41-55, of Wachi, it is disclosed that a “vibrator is
attached to the resonator of a conventional musical instrument having the resonator in its main body...”
[emphasis ours] and that the “conventional semi-acoustic guitar is used as the resonator of the speaker
system.” Further, it is recited therein that elements are arranged “to change and set a resonance
frequency of a resonator as an original musical instrument to be an optimal value.” Therefore, it
appears to us that Wachi clearly discloses and suggests the improvement of sound quality by sensing
vibrations from the structure and adjusting vibrations via an actuator means, i.e., the vibrator driver 8.
Since the resonator is in the main body of Wachi’s device, it appears that the acoustic musical
instrument structure is doing the vibrating and that the vibrator driver causes an adjustment to those
vibrations to improve sound quality by altering the sound normally emanating from the acoustic
chamber, as broadly claimed.
With regard to the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Fishman discloses piezoelectric
transducers and we agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to apply such piezoelectric
transducers in Wachi. Appellants argue that Fishman is directed to transducers which are responsive to
string vibrations instead of a structural vibration and that there would have been no suggestion for
combining Fishman with Wachi.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007