Appeal 2007-0483
Application 10/087,032
Claim 12 recites that the connector has two plugs respectively coupled
to the earpiece receiver and the microphone. The claim includes the
intended use limitation of “to facilitate (a)” and “(b).” Part “(a)” recites, in
part, an input-output interface and an output interface, where telephony and
non-telephony audio signals are outputted on both interfaces, which clearly
refers to the “two corresponding complementary interfaces of the wireless
mobile phone,” rather than any structure of the headset. Contrary to the
implication at the bottom of page 5 of the Appeal Brief, the references do
not need to teach or suggest an “output interface,” because claim 12 does not
require an “output interface.”
Reshefsky, considered alone, could thus be considered as meeting all
the limitations of claim 12. The reference describes (¶¶ 21-24) a wireless
mobile phone headset 10 (Fig. 1) having earpiece receivers 12 and a
microphone 60. Claim 12 does not specify the form that the “connector”
may take, other than the requirement of the “two plugs.” The portion of the
headset in Reshefsky comprising distal end sections 23 of cables 20 and 22,
below O ring 34 (Fig. 3), is a connector having two plugs 28, 30. Plug 30 is
coupled to both (i.e., at least a “first”) of earpiece receivers 12. Plug 28 is
coupled to microphone 60.
The plugs serve to facilitate removable attachment of the headset to
audio devices, transfer of audio signals from an attached device to the
earpiece receivers, and transfer of audio signals from microphone 60 to an
attached device. The unclaimed (in claim 12) wireless mobile phone, with
respect to its recited phone interfaces and the implied types of phone-
produced audio signals, does not provide any actual limitations not met by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013