Appeal No. 2000-1888
Application No. 08/885,984
desired directional response, which is unresponsive to sounds
coming from certain directions, may be obtained.
We note that Appellants’ claims 18 and 37 merely require
that hole sizes be large compared to the path line length of the
boot. McAteer teaches the smaller path line length of the holes
relative to the hole size as the short lengths of acoustic
channels in the regions behind the microphone element (col. 5,
lines 53-57). However, claims 3, 19-22, 26, 38-41 and 45 recite
varying the volume of the region behind the microphone element by
changing the distance between the element and the front and rear
surfaces of a shell of a portable computer. This limitation
requires a specific orientation of the directional microphone
with respect to the front and rear surfaces of the computer
shell. We agree with Appellants (brief, page 12) and find that
the Examiner has failed to identify any teachings in the prior
art that would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
the claimed varied distance between the element and the front and
rear surfaces of the computer shell.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007