Appeal No. 1999-1112
Application No. 08/683,705
While Fishman’s piezoelectric transducers may be disclosed as having applicability to the strings of
an acoustic musical instrument, the teaching is not so limited nor would it have been recognized by
artisans as being so limited. The artisan would have gleaned a broader teaching from Fishman, that is,
the applicability of piezoelectric transducers in sensing vibrations in general. Since Wachi discloses a
vibrator but does not specify the exact type of vibrator or vibrator driver, the artisan would have been
led to extend the teaching of Fishman so as to provide for a piezoelectric transducer in Wachi.
Accordingly, we find the examiner’s combination of Wachi and Fishman to have been reasonable and
we will sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. 103.
Turning, finally, to the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, we
will not sustain this rejection. Even though the words and phrases, “microprocessor, microcontroller, or
application specific integrated circuit” do not appear in the original disclosure, the depiction of a DSP
board and a host computer in Figure 22 of the instant application would clearly have suggested to the
artisan that the claimed processor would have been selected from many devices including a
microprocessor, microcontroller or an application specific integrated circuit. The state of the art in the
mid-1990's, at the time of filing the original application, would clearly have suggested to the artisan that
applicants had in their possession, at the time of filing the application, the knowledge of employing a
microprocessor, microcontroller or an application specific integrated circuit for the disclosed processor
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007