Appeal No. 2006-1794
Application No. 10/119,186
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Fenner, Jr. (Fenner) 5,473,700 Dec. 5, 1995
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b) as anticipated by Fenner.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of appellant
and the examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without
undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
The examiner applies Fenner to independent claim 3 as follows:
The claimed audio loudspeaker is said to be shown in Fenner as dual-dome transducer
100. This “loudspeaker” is to be mounted on a surface, identified by the examiner as either
170 or 173. The claimed mount is identified by the examiner as comprising Fenner’s single
anchor screw 14, bolt in Figure 1B. The examiner contends that the mount incorporates a
rotation means, identified as element 12 in Fenner, for hand attachment to the surface. The
examiner also identifies a means for speaker mounting in Fenner as the hole in raised boss 9
for mounting rotation means 12, pointing to Figures 1, 1A, 1B, column 4, lines 41-49, and
column 6, line 66 to column 7, line 1 of Fenner.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007