Appeal No. 2006-1777
Application No. 10/206,704
Appellant in the Brief repeats language from claims 9-11, 21, and 22, and
repeats arguments we have considered in the rejection of claims 1 and 2. We sustain
the rejection of claims 9, 21, and 22 for substantially the same reasons that we have
sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 8. We sustain the rejection of dependent claim
10 for substantially the same reasons that we have sustained the rejection of claims 1,
2, and 8. We sustain the rejection of dependent claim 11 since Johnson meets at least
the “gain” alternative for changing the electrical characteristic of the audio signal sent to
the sound transducer because the negative feedback changes the gain of the audio
signal (e.g., col. 17, ll. 29-37).
Johnson and Walker
We next consider the § 103 rejection of claims 3-7, 12, and 13 as being
unpatentable over Johnson and Walker. Appellant submits that the rejection of claims 3
and 12 is improper because Walker does not measure impedance mismatch. We are
not persuaded that Walker does not measure impedance mismatch, as noted in our
discussion of the § 102 rejection over Walker. We sustain the rejection of claims 3 and
12. Further, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 because Walker teaches measuring
changes in the electrical parameter (e.g., Fig. 2) in accordance with the claim.
With respect to claim 4, the examiner finds that frequency 3 as depicted in Figure
1B of Walker represents where the mismatch between the actual and reference
electrical impedance is the greatest. Since the circuit of Figure 2 would operate over a
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007