Appeal 2007-0483
Application 10/087,032
2. Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reshefsky, Douglas, and Adams.
3. Claims 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reshefsky, Douglas, and Choi.
OPINION
Instant claim 12 recites a wireless mobile phone headset that
comprises an earpiece receiver, a microphone, and a connector. The
connector has two plugs “respectively” coupled to the earpiece receiver and
the microphone. The Examiner applies the teachings of Reshefsky and
Douglas in a rejection for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (Answer
4-5.)
Initially, we note our agreement with the Examiner’s claim
interpretation, in the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, in what the word “respectively” requires in claim 12. As
Appellants acknowledge (Reply Br. 1-2), there is no express requirement
that one plug is “only” coupled to the receiver and one plug is “only”
coupled to the microphone. Nor does the claim inherently require the “only”
modifiers urged by Appellants (id. at 2). The word “respectively” is not read
out of the claim in the Examiner’s interpretation. The word has meaning
because it sets forth the requirement that one plug is coupled to the receiver
and one plug is coupled to the microphone. The claim does not preclude,
however, that one or both of the plugs are, in addition, coupled to another of
the receiver or microphone.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013