Appeal No. 2001-1923
Application No. 09/031,356
The examiner’s comments at pages 7 and 8 of the answer
relating to appellants’ prior patent, derived apparently from
the parent application to this application, appear to be
misplaced since they do not correspond responsively to any
argument made by appellants in the brief.
Finally, we sustain the rejection of claim 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Genuit alone. This
rejection was set forth at page 4 of the final rejection and
repeated in the answer beginning at the bottom of page 5.
Appellants’ brief contains no arguments directed at traversing
this rejection. Therefore, we have no arguments from
appellants’ alleging any error in the examiner’s rejection of
this claim.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained only as to claim
28.
Therefore, the decision of examiner is affirmed-in-part.1
1 The examiner is free to re-institute rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of the claims on appeal in subsequent Office
actions using the same and/or additional prior art. We also
note in passing that the claimed body portion relating to
simulated human heads and torsos appears to be part of the prior
art as noted in the paragraph bridging specification pages 1 and
2 relating to well-established prior art binaural recording
techniques. It appears to be well established in the art that
mannequins or similar dummy heads of humans were utilized as
source recording devices.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007