Appeal No. 2002-1839 Page 7
Application No. 09/199,751
Here, the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of Kohut
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Murakami. Absent a teaching or suggestion of
at least one secondary electro-acoustic driver that is mounted partway along a horn,
downstream from the throat of the horn, the examiner fails to present a prima facie case
of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 2.
Claims 10-15
Admitting that "what's not taught by Murakami for the horn loudspeaker . . . is a
signal processor for processing input signals to the at least one secondary driver to
control the polar response and the specific electronic components for the processor as
claimed," (Final Rejection at 3-41), the examiner asserts, "[i]t would have been obvious
. . . to modify the horn loudspeaker of Murakami with a signal processor as shown by
Kohut in order to process a input audio signal to apply to the different drivers of the
horn loudspeaker to produce or improve audio response of the horn speaker." (Id.
at 4.) The appellants argue, "Murakami teaches away from separate and differentiated
control of the individual loudspeakers in his array; he wishes all of his speakers to
operate in unison to provide an imaginary 'vibrating plane' at the baffle-board 6 or
throat 30a, with no interference (column 4 lines 30-37)." (Reply Br. at 4-5.)
1We advise the examiner to copy his rejections into his examiner's answers
rather than merely referring to a "rejection . . . set forth in prior Office Action. . . ."
(Examiner's Answer at 3.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007