Appeal No. 2005-1380
Application No. 09/944,314
is not limited to any number of components as long as the surface
of the hearing instrument shell is associated or “imparted” with
a “texture” or series of lines.
With regard to the rejection over Widmer, appellants argue
that neither the ribs nor grooves of Widmer constitute a
“texture” or the step of “imparting a texture” as described and
claimed (Brief, page 7). Appellants further argue that the
surface of Widmer remains smooth and untextured while Widmer
fails to address the problems of slippage and appearance solved
by appellants’ invention (id.; Reply Brief, page 3). These
arguments are also not persuasive in view of our claim
construction as discussed above. Widmer clearly discloses
“imparting” or associating the ribs 51 on the surface of the
hearing instrument shell, thus creating a “texture” or series of
lines or shapes on the surface of the hearing instrument shell
(see Figures 18 and 19; col. 12, ll. 49-63; and col. 13, ll. 10-
13).
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those reasons set
forth in the Answer and the Office action dated May 18, 2004, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation in view of the reference evidence, which has not
been adequately rebutted by appellants’ arguments and evidence.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007