Appeal No. 2006-1777
Application No. 10/206,704
claim 18 over Walker. However, we sustain the rejection of claim 19 because the
examiner finds that any loudspeaker is inherently disposed within a housing, a finding
that seems reasonable on its face. Appellant has not traversed the finding, but appears
to rely (Brief at 14) on the unpersuasive arguments regarding the limitations of claim 14
to distinguish over Walker.
Walker and Klippel
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Walker and Klippel. Claim 16 incorporates the limitations of claim 15.
Klippel does not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection applied against base claim 15.
Richardson and Walker
Claims 14 and 17 are, at least nominally, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Richardson and Walker. The statement of the rejection
(Answer at 8) relates to the requirements of claim 17. Claim 14, however, seems to be
included in the rejection. Perhaps the naming of claim 14 relates to the fact that the
rejection is reasoned in terms of Richardson in view of Walker, which was applied
against base claim 14, rather than in terms of Walker in view of Richardson. In any
event, we summarily sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 14 because, on this record,
Walker taken alone has been demonstrated to meet all the requirements of (i.e.,
anticipate) claim 14.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007