Appeal No. 2006-0681
Application No. 09/072,412
With respect to independent claim 13, Appellant argues at
pages 11-13 of the brief, that Bartlett fails to teach,
“determining a selected location proximate to an acoustical
generator” or “a microphone element adapted to be placed at a
specified location proximate to the acoustical generator.” As to
the first limitation, it is not found in claim 13. As to the
second limitation, claim 13 is a system (apparatus) claim and
Appellant’s argument does not address how the recited limitation
“adapted to be placed at a specified selected location proximate
to the acoustical generator” structurally or functionally
distinguishes the claimed microphone from the prior art
microphone. Without more, Appellant has not shown how the
Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 13.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Returning to the first limitation, we find the limitation in
claims 1, 5 and 32. However, we find no explanation in
Appellant’s argument as to what meaning he is giving the words in
this limitation that would distinguish the claimed limitation
from what is described in Bartlett. We note that at the next to
last line of page 12 of the brief, Appellant uses the term “fixed
location.” However, at the oral hearing, Appellant stated that
the use of this term does not imply any further limitation than
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007