Appeal No. 2002-1839 Page 4
Application No. 09/199,751
Claims 1-9
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellants in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "[a]lthough
in Fig. 6 Murakami indicated 30a as the throat of the sound horn 30, it's clear to the
extend [sic] that the horn structure formed by fitting plate 8 . . . can be viewed as an
horn extension of sound horn 30 (i.e., sound horn 30 and fitting plate 8 formed in/as a
continuous extension)." (Examiner’s Answer at 3-4.) The appellants argue, "Murakami
does not teach or hint at the concept of speakers downstream of the throat of the horn."
(Appeal Br. at 5.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "at
least one secondary electro-acoustic driver mounted part-way along the horn, spaced
from the throat, and directed generally across the horn." Giving the independent claim
its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require at least one secondary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007