Appeal No. 2006-1688
Application 09/901,244
provide a foolproof acoustic seal between Kerouac’s ear cuff and
outer ear cavities having different shapes and configurations.
Accordingly, we are not convinced of reversible error in the
rejection over Kerouac in view of Baum.
Rejection of claims 63 and 70 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claim 63 requires that “the annular flange comprises a
substantially circular shape”, whereas claim 60, from which claim 63
depends, recites “a plurality of annular flanges”. The examiner
argues that “[i]t is unclear whether each of the plurality of
annular flanges has a substantially circular shape or merely one of
the flanges” (office action mailed July 28, 2004, page 4). “The
applicants submit that the language is clear and that at least one
of the plurality of flanges is substantially circular” (answer,
page 18).
The appellants’ interpretation of claim 63 is plausible and
consistent with the appellants’ original disclosure. However,
another plausible interpretation that is consistent with the
appellants’ original disclosure is that “the annular flange” refers
to each of the plurality of flanges. The support for that
interpretation is the appellants’ disclosure that the flanges may
have virtually any shape, including circular (specification, page 7,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007