Appeal No. 2001-1923
Application No. 09/031,356
frequency of said received sound wave such that said
sound wave will reach the first and second microphones
at substantially the same time.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Suzuki et al. (Suzuki) 3,870,820 Mar. 11, 1975
Yoshida et al. (Yoshida) 4,442,323 Apr. 10, 1984
Genuit 4,741,035 Apr. 26, 1988
Claims 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Genuit in view
of Yoshida as to claims 26 and 27. Claim 28 is rejected twice.
The first rejection is Suzuki in view of Yoshida and the second
rejection is on the basis of Genuit alone. The rejection of
claims 26-28 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting in the final rejection is not
repeated in the answer and not argued in the Brief.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
appellants’ and the examiner’s respective positions.
OPINION
On the one hand, while we reverse the rejection of claims
26 and 27 and the first stated rejection of claim 28, we sustain
the second rejection of claim 28 as being obvious over Genuit
alone.
We generally agree with appellants’ views expressed in the
Brief that the rejection of claims 26 and 27 and the first
stated rejection of claim 28 are based upon rejections where the
references have not been properly combined within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. The examiner has not set forth a prima facie case
obviousness for either rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007