Appeal 2007-0483
Application 10/087,032
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).
Claims 13-17 and 19 fall with claim 12. Appellants rely on the
supposed deficiencies in the rejection of claim 12 and provide no separate
arguments for patentability in the Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Reshefsky, Douglas, and Choi. The claim recites that one of the two plugs is
a 4-pin plug comprising two input pins, and that neither of the input pins are
coupled to the first earpiece receiver. The Examiner relies on Choi, which
describes a hands-free speakerphone device, for teaching such a plug,
referring in particular to paragraph 48 of the reference. The section teaches
that both an audio signal and power may be output by a mobile terminal
(obviating external battery 601; Fig. 5), using a four port (or four contact)
ear-phone jack in place of a two-port earphone jack (audio only). Choi thus
describes a four-pin ear-phone jack, having two pins for audio and two pins
to supply power. The power pins qualify as “input pins,” as a source of
power input. In Choi, neither of the input pins are coupled to an earpiece
receiver, consistent with instant claim 18. In the particular embodiment
described by Choi, the power pins supply power to amplifier 602 (Fig. 5)
and speaker 330, although the audio-signal contacts are coupled to earbud
106. Choi, ¶¶ 45-47; Figs. 4, 5.
We therefore disagree with Appellants’ assessment of the teachings of
Choi as applied to instant claim 18. The claim requires that neither of the
input pins are coupled to the first earpiece receiver, but does not specify the
use, or even the intended use, of the “two input pins.” The power pins
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013