Ex Parte STEWART - Page 2



          Appeal No. 1999-2339                                                        
          Application No. 08/598,098                                                  

          spaced apart from each other.  A signal processor receives the              
          electrical signals and produces a specific direction and width              
          sound signal by processing the electrical signals according to a            
          specific sound direction.                                                   

               Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:           
               1.  A sound processing apparatus comprising:                           
               a plurality of microphones spaced apart from each other,               
          each microphone producing electrical signals representative of              
          sound signals incident thereon; and                                         
               a signal processing unit receiving the electrical signals              
          and producing a specific direction and width sound signal by                
          processing the electrical signals according to a specific sound             
          direction.                                                                  
               The examiner relies on the following references:                       
          Elko et al. (Elko)              4,802,227    Jan. 31, 1989                  
          Yanagawa et al. (Yanagawa)      5,233,664       Aug. 03, 1993               
          Gale                            5,291,556     Mar. 01, 1994                 
          Chang et al. (Chang)            5,581,036     Dec. 03, 1996                 
                         (filed May 23, 1994)                                         

               Claims 1, 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as            
          anticipated by Elko.                                                        
               Claims 1-6 and 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.  As            
          evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Elko with regard to            
          claim 8, adding Gale with regard to claim 9, and further adding             
                                         -2–                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007