Appeal No. 2000-1526
Application No. 08/902,196
teaching in the cited references as to how this would be accomplished. That is, even if
magnetic-to-acoustic transducers were known, we have no suggestion in the applied
references as to how or why the artisan would have employed such a transducer in
combination with Marutake to result in a testing device for testing magnetic hearing
devices.
We note that, with regard to independent claim 45, appellants only argue the
“stand” limitation of the claim. While such a stand may, or may not, be obvious, within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, regardless of whether a human wearing the drive coil
may be considered a “stand,” for consistency purposes, we note that claim 45 also calls
for a “test apparatus for a magnetic drive hearing device” and “a magnetic-to-acoustic
converter...” Accordingly, for the reasons supra, the examiner has presented no
convincing rationale as to why and/or how it would have been obvious to convert Frye’s
conventional acoustic hearing device tester into a magnetic drive hearing device tester.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 31-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, and we have sustained the rejection of claims 35-38 and 42-44 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We have not, however, sustained the rejection of
claims 31-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007