Appeal No. 1999-2339
Application No. 08/598,098
Chang with regard to claims 5 and 6. With regard to claims 1-4
and 10-13, the examiner offers Chang and with regard to claim 14,
the examiner cites Elko and either one of Yanagawa or Gale.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1, 7 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b), since claims 7 and 13 are grouped together with
claim 1 [top of page 4 of the principal brief], we will focus on
claim 1.
Claim 1 calls for a sound processing apparatus comprising a
plurality of microphones spaced apart from each other. This is
taught by Elko at column 2, lines 53-54, wherein “an array of
electroacoustic transducers having a prescribed directional
response pattern...” is described. The claim says that “each
microphone produc[es] electrical signals representative of sound
signals incident thereon.” That is what microphones do, but this
is also described in Elko, at column 2, lines 55-57, wherein the
array of transducers “...receives sounds from the preferred
location as well as a plurality of unwanted sounds from other
locations and produces signals responsive thereto” [emphasis
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007