Appeal No. 2005-1380
Application No. 09/944,314
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of claim 1, and the claims
that stand or fall with claim 1, in each of the rejections on
appeal based on section 102.
B. The Rejection based on Section 103(a)
With regard to claims 6 and 13, the examiner adopts the
findings from Widmer as discussed above, additionally citing
Hoerkens for the disclosure of applying waveforms (i.e., pleats)
to the edges of one or more of the layers during the process of
fabrication (Office action dated May 18, 2004, page 4). From
these findings, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention to apply waveforms to the edges of one or
more of the layers during the process of fabrication to permit
the hearing aid to be worn inconspicuously (id.). We agree.
Appellants argue that Hoerkens does not disclose the words
“waveforms” and “layers” (Brief, page 8). Appellants further
argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in either reference
to make the proposed combination (id.; Reply Brief, page 4).
Finally, appellants argue that even if the references are
properly combined, they still lack the element of “imparting a
texture” (id.). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. In
view of our claim construction as discussed above, the step of
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007