Appeal 2007-0016
Application 10/700,496
Wu and satisfies the requirements of independent claim 1 especially in view
of the fact that the claim language “bottom surface” is not related to any
other surface or structure of the claimed binocular.
Further evidence of the reasonableness of the Examiner’s
interpretation of Wu is that the disclosure of Wu scrupulously avoids
referring to any surface as a top or bottom surface. For example, instead of
describing the illustration in Figure 1 as a top or bottom view, Wu merely
describes it as a perspective view [0006].
We further find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ argument (Br. 11;
Reply Br. 4) that Wu completely fails to disclose the location of the
microphone in relation to the binoculars. Contrary to Appellants’
contention, Wu does indeed disclose the location of the microphone, i.e.,
inside the digital image storage unit 2 which is located on what is, in our
view, reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as being the bottom surface of
the binoculars.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Wu, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claim 1 is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
dependent claims 3-6 based on Wu. We find no persuasive arguments from
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013