Appeal No. 2000-1888
Application No. 08/885,984
by varying the sound openings separation “d” on the housing to
show configuration of the boot and achieving different
directional response patterns (answer, page 7). The Examiner
further points out that improving the directivity pattern of
McAteer’s microphone would have inherently reduced the overall
pickup of undesired sounds including those from sources internal
to the computer (answer, page 8).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires a
finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art reference.
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d
1943, 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Further, establishing anticipation of a claim
requires that a single prior art reference discloses, expressly
or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007