Appeal No. 2006-1777
Application No. 10/206,704
invention must be identically shown in a single reference. However, this is not an
“ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
Johnson summarizes the current feedback circuitry (Fig. 1C) at column 15, lines
26 through 41. The current feedback compensates for low impedance values of the
loudspeaker that may occur due to the electromechanical and acoustic resonances
associated with the speaker.
We are not persuaded of error in the examiner’s position that Johnson teaches
determining a change in an electrical parameter (i.e., current) that changes with
changes in an acoustic impedance of the sound transducer (i.e, loudspeaker). The
circuitry described by Johnson may fairly be considered to determine audio signal
compensation based upon the change in the electrical parameter via the selected circuit
elements and the selected values of those elements. The real time feedback described
by the reference is a form of dynamic compensation of an audio signal sent to the
sound transducer based upon the audio signal compensation. Johnson falls within the
broad scope of instant claim 1. We sustain the rejection.
We also sustain the rejection of depending claim 2, as a hearing aid receives an
audio voice signal. We sustain the rejection of depending claim 8 because, as noted by
the examiner and supra, Johnson teaches that the electrical parameter of the sound
transducer changes with the acoustical impedance of the sound transducer.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007