Appeal No. 2006-1777
Application No. 10/206,704
With respect to the rejection of claim 17, appellant argues (Brief at 23) that the
examiner “has not specifically indicated how the prior art applies to Claim 17.” The
argument is incorrect; see the examiner’s findings in the Final Rejection and the
Answer. In the Reply Brief (at 10), appellant relies on the untenable position that
Walker fails to disclose a “mismatch detection circuit.” Being not persuaded of error in
the rejection of claim 17, we sustain the § 103 rejection over Richardson and Walker.
Johnson
Johnson describes a current feedback arrangement in an output amplifier
suitable for use in driving loudspeakers for hearing aids (e.g., col. 1, ll. 29-42).
According to Johnson, the loudspeakers have electrical characteristics that depend on
the electrical materials, the mechanical construction of the load device, and the acoustic
surroundings in which the device is placed. The electrical impedance characteristic of
the loudspeaker may reflect resonances arising as a result of the acoustic impedance
faced by the loudspeaker. Col. 3, ll. 7-23.
Appellant notes these and other sections of Johnson upon which the examiner
bases the § 102 rejection of claim 1, and alleges that Johnson fails to disclose or
suggest any of the entirety of claim 1. Appellant does not explain, however, why the
examiner’s findings should be considered erroneous. Appellant’s arguments are correct
to the extent that Johnson does not contain all the words of instant claim 1. For a prior
art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007