Appeal No. 2000-0546
Application 08/509,228
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellants
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 12, 14, 20 and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2-3, 5-11, 13, 15-19 and 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We first will address the rejection of claims 1, 4, 12, 14,
20 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. “It is axiomatic that
anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the
prior art reference discloses every element of the claim[.]” See
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Appellants argue that Baker does not disclose the speaker
position data representing the position of the speaker as
coordinates for a point in space. Appeal Brief, page 5, lines
9-16. More specifically, Appellants argue that the limitation,
““a point in space[,]” must be defined in three dimensions.”
Reply Brief, page 3, lines 10-11 and Appeal Brief, page 5, lines
22-23. Appellants assert that the generated data disclosed by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007