Appeal No. 2006-1777
Application No. 10/206,704
range of frequencies inclusive of that at the resonance represented by frequency 3,
Walker teaches determining the change in the electrical parameter at least at a
frequency where the mismatch between the actual and reference electrical impedance
is greatest. (Answer at 10.) Appellant is correct that Figure 1B of Walker shows the
sound pressure of a real speaker as a function of frequency. (Brief at 24.) Appellant’s
remarks do not, however, demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 4. We sustain the
rejection.
Because Johnson teaches compensating the audio signal by changing at least
the gain of the audio signal sent to the sound transducer as required by claim 6, we
sustain the § 103 rejection of the claim.1
We do not, however, sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 5 or 13. We agree with
appellant that the rejection over Johnson and Walker fails to show disclosure or
suggestion of empirical audio signal compensation data as required by the claims.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 6-9, 11, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Nakano is reversed.
1 In comparing the requirements of claim 11 and claim 6, it is apparent that claim 6 should have
been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Johnson In any event, claim 6 is unpatentable under both
statutory sections. Anticipation is “the epitome of obviousness.” See, e.g., Connell v. Sears, Roebuck &
Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215
USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007