Appeal No. 2006-1688
Application 09/901,244
Kerouac would not be disposed proximate the second opening of the
ear insert of Baum” (brief, page 17).
As indicated by the above argument by the examiner, the
examiner is not relying upon inserting Baum’s ear insert into
Kerouac’s ear probe. Instead, the examiner is combining Baum’s
annular flanges with Kerouac’s ear probe that includes a resilient
cuff (12) with a conduit (3), corresponding to the appellants’
probe, through a passage in the cuff such that the passage is
substantially in contact with the probe along a length, and an end
of the passage is proximate to a probe end (figure 8).
The appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine
Kerouac and Baum because Kerouac does not recognize the problem of
multiple ear shapes and sizes (brief, page 17). That problem is
recognized by Baum (col. 1, lines 47-50). Baum solves the problem
by using thin flexible skirt-like protrusions (41, 42, 43), which
are comparable to the appellants’ annular flanges, which wedge
against the surrounding surfaces of outer ear cavities of different
shapes and configurations to automatically establish therewith a
foolproof acoustic seal which prevents propagation of sound through
the space surrounding the exterior of the ear insert (col. 1,
lines 1-7; col. 4, lines 4-22). The motivation for combining this
teaching by Baum with Kerouac’s disclosure would have been to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007