Appeal No. 2000-1526
Application No. 08/902,196
We find references in the specification to “calibrated” instrument quality test
microphone [e.g., page 6] and to a coupler and receiver being designed “to provide a
flat response over the frequency range” [page 10] but we find no specific references to
“the acoustic output signal is a calibrated acoustic output signal such that different ones
of the test apparatus produce substantially identical test results” and “a combined
frequency response of the magnetic drive unit and the signal processing circuitry is
substantially linear when the magnetic drive has the specified characteristic,” nor have
appellants specifically pointed to anything within the instant disclosure which is alleged
to provide support for the now claimed limitations.
Accordingly, since the examiner has made a reasonable challenge to the
adequacy of the written description and appellants have not convincingly responded
thereto, we will sustain the rejection of claims 31-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Turning, finally to the rejection of claims 31-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will not
sustain this rejection because we do not view the examiner’s rationale as presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness.
Each of the instant claims requires at least the testing of a magnetic hearing
device. This is accomplished by converting magnetic signals into electric signals and,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007