Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
component’ of the audio signal” (answer, page 4). The examiner
further explains that
[t]he claim to “another component” of the audio signal
does not define over a first intensity and a second
intensity (balancing and then, in response to movement
of the listener, rebalancing) of the audio signal. The
breath of “another component” of the audio signal is
such as to read upon two different levels of balancing
or intensity [answer, page 7].
The examiner’s position here is unreasonable. Stevenson
discloses the modification of only one component of an audio
signal, i.e., the balance or intensity, based on first and second
distances from first and second range devices to a listener. A
person of ordinary skill in the art clearly would not view a
further modification of this same component to be a modification
of another component of the audio signal. Hence, the examiner’s
determination that Stevenson discloses each and every element of
the invention set forth in claim 14 is unsound.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 14, and dependent claims
15 and 24, as being anticipated by Stevenson.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 7, 10
through 13, 16 through 23, 25 and 26 as being unpatentable over
Stevenson in view of Tatemi
Independent claim 1 recites an audio system comprising,
inter alia, a positioning routine adapted to modify a “timing” of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007