Appeal No. 2005-0232
Application No. 10/169,818
We therefore agree with the examiner’s position as set
forth on pages 3-7 of the answer, and incorporate it as our own.
We emphasize that the phrase “movable index” or “moving means
for moving the audio adjustment parameter along the path to a
second position indicative of a second value of the audio
adjustment parameter”, is not so limited as appellants assert in
the brief.
In view of the above, therefore, we affirm the anticipation
rejection.
II. The obviousness rejection of claim 5
On page 8 of the brief, appellant argues that claim 5
depends upon claim 1, and therefore claim 5 includes all the
elements and limitations of independent claim 1, and is
therefore allowable over Yatsu also.
For the same reasons, therefore, that we have affirmed the
anticipation rejection, we also affirm the obviousness rejection
of claim 5 as being unpatentable over Yatsu.
III. Conclusion
Each of the rejections is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007