Appeal No. 2006-1777
Application No. 10/206,704
Claims 1, 2, 8-11, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Johnson.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Walker.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Walker and Klippel.
Claims 14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Richardson and Walker.
Claims 3-7, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Johnson and Walker.
Claim 20 has been allowed.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Mar. 24, 2005) and the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed Oct. 7, 2005) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief
(filed Jun. 29, 2005) and the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 30, 2005) for appellant’s position
with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Nakano
Claims 1, 6-9, 11, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Nakano. The rejection deems the “dynamically compensating” step of
claim 1 to read on continuous adjustment of the audio signal to be sent to the speaker,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007