Appeal No. 2002-1839 Page 8
Application No. 09/199,751
"When prior art contains apparently conflicting references, the Board must weigh
each reference for its power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skill. The
Board must consider all disclosures of the prior art. . . ." In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750,
192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)). See, e.g., In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231
USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Petersen must be read, not in isolation, but for what
it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.").
Here, we agree with the examiner that "Kohut discloses a circuit or processor for
improving the polar response of horn loaded loudspeaker system including a signal
processor . . . for processing input signals to different loudspeakers to control the polar
response of the loudspeaker system." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) In its own words, the
secondary reference "relates to multi-way loudspeaker systems utilizing active or
passive electronics for optimization, and more particularly to improving the polar
response of a multi-way speaker system which uses a horn-loaded high frequency
driver." Col. 1, ll. 8-12. Such an improvement, moreover, points toward combining
Kohut with a multi-way speaker system.
Our assessment does not stop, however, with Kohut. We "must consider the
passages and references which point away from the invention as well as those said to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007