Appeal No. 2004-0984
Application No. 09/501,970 Page 6
notes that the combined teachings of Weider and Lansang fail to
disclose that buttons within each group are located in a
separate recess or depression on the ear cup. To overcome this
deficiency of Weider and Lansang, the examiner turns to Sayler
for a disclosure of button groupings within a recess (recess 20
having buttons grouping 60). The examiner's reasoning is that
the modification would allow comfortable and quick access to each
of the buttons in each grouping.
At the outset, we observe that appellant does not dispute
the examiner's interpretation of Weider and Lansang. Nor does
appellant dispute the combinability of Weider and Lansang.
Rather, appellant asserts (brief, page 5) that Sayler is not
combinable with Weider and Lansang because Sayler is directed to
a hand held control unit and is unrelated to an acoustical
headset. It is argued (id.) that the examiner's rejection is
nothing more that a hindsight reconstruction of appellant's
invention. It is argued that in appellant's invention, the
depressions have a plurality of buttons wherein each plurality of
buttons in each recess constitutes a button set, and that the
buttons are functionally connected to each other; i.e., each set
of buttons, such as 18, 18' and 19, 19' are in another recess.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007