Appeal No. 2001-0913
Application No. 09/002,058
in a vacuum but in light of the specification. The specification explains what is
meant by a traditional instrument.
Although appellant’s claim style of contrasting the conventional/traditional instrument with the
wave enhancing means of his invention is not exactly a model of clarity, when claims 27 and 34 are
read in light of the disclosure, however, we are of the opinion that the skilled artisan would
understand the contrast being made between the traditional instrument and appellant’s disclosed and
claimed instrument. In other words, the skilled artisan would know the metes and bounds of
appellant’s contribution to the stringed instrument art. Accordingly, the indefiniteness rejection of
claims 27 and 34 is reversed.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claim 1, appellant has not presented a challenge
to the examiner’s findings concerning the teachings of Pedersen, and the use of this reference in
conjunction with the teachings of de Cristofaro. Instead, the appellant has challenged the
examiner’s findings concerning the sound bar teachings of de Cristofaro. Appellant argues (brief,
page 26) that sound bar e in de Cristofaro is used to reinforce the sound board b, and that it is not
used for low frequency enhancement. Appellant additionally argues (brief, page 27) that:
The assertion of enhanced loudness is not based on scientific evidence, is not based
on known acoustic principles and is erroneous unbelievable subjective impression
not based on modern technology. There is no enhancement of acoustic waves in this
French document in only the lower portion of the acoustic frequency spectrum as
claimed in claim 1.
We agree with appellant’s arguments that de Cristofaro is completely silent as to use of the sound
bar e for the purpose listed by the examiner in the rejection. Thus, the obviousness rejection of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007