Appeal No. 2001-0261
Application 08/546,050
Rev. 3, July 1997) (in effect at the time of the examiner's
answer, but not in effect at the time of the final rejection),
rather than being rejected without giving any statutory basis,
MPEP § 706.03(k) (6th ed., Rev. 2, July 1996). The rejection of
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed.
Sapiejewski '387 and '868
Appellant argues (Br9-10; Br13; RBr3-4) that Sapiejewski
'387 and '868 do not disclose the limitation "said extended
portion being curved along substantially its entire length to
substantially match the curvature of said concha and to allow
attachment around said extended portion of a cushion for
establishing a seal between said extended portion and the user's
ear" because they show a flat horizontal side at the bottom and a
sloping flat side at the top in the structure corresponding to
the extended portion. It is also argued that the references
teach away from the limitation by disclosing a custom snap-on ear
cavity mold.
The examiner finds that "the entire length of the extended
portion (14B) of Sapiejewski (U.S. patent no. 5,305,387 and U.S.
patent no. 5,208,868) is curved inwardly toward the inside [of]
the ear canal (also see column 1, lines 36-41)" (EA12; FR13).
Initially, we note that the limitation at issue is "said
extended portion being curved along substantially its entire
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007