Ex parte Yamagishi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2001

08320935 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MAKOTO YAMAGISHI
____________
Appeal No. 1998-0412
Application No. 08/320,935
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative
Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 5
through 9, 11 through 16 and 18 through 27.
The disclosed invention relates to an electro-acoustical
apparatus.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
Appeal No. 1998-0412
Application No. 08/320,935
2
1. An electric-acoustic apparatus, comprising:
an electro-acoustic transducer accommodated in a cabinet;
and
a sound guide tube for conducting the sound from the
electro-acoustic transducer unit out of said cabinet;
said sound guide tube having a smaller diameter than an
external acoustic meatus to allow at least a sound radiating
end of the sound guide tube to be inserted into the external
acoustic meatus;
said electro-acoustic apparatus further comprising
supporting means for supporting one of said transducer or said
sound guide tube so that the sound radiating end of said sound
guide tube is at a predetermined position within the external
acoustic meatus;
wherein said cabinet is formed for enclosing the rear
side of said electro-acoustic transducer unit and not a sound
radiating side of said electro-acoustic transducer, said sound
guide tube being L-shaped and having an end opposite to said
sound radiating end connected to a sound conducting opening
provided on a lateral side of said cabinet.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Gefvert et al. (Gefvert) 3,816,672 June
11, 1974
Bellafiore 4,291,203 Sept. 22,
1981
Miura et al. (Miura) 5,022,486 June 11,
1991
(filed Sept. 20,
1989)
Ward et al. (Ward) 5,031,219 July 9,
1991
(filed Sept. 15,
1988)
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Miura.
Appeal No. 1998-0412
Application No. 08/320,935
3
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Miura in view of Bellafiore.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Miura in view of common equalizing practices
in the art.
Claims 12 through 15 and 25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bellafiore in view of Ward.
Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bellafiore in view of Ward and
Gefvert.
Claims 16, 18 through 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of
Gefvert.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Miura in view of Gefvert and Ward.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
All of the rejections are reversed.
Appeal No. 1998-0412
Application No. 08/320,935
4
Turning first to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claims 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9, appellant argues (brief, pages 16 and
17) that the claims are not anticipated by the teachings of
Miura because the tube 1 in Miura extends to the entrance of
the external acoustic meatus A, but not into the external
acoustic meatus as claimed. Appellant also argues (brief,
page 16) that it is apparent from the figures of Miura that
“the outer diameter of the tube is not less than the diameter
of the external acoustic meatus, whereby the tube 1 could not
be inserted into the external acoustic meatus.” The
examiner’s contentions (answer, page 12) to the contrary
notwithstanding, Miura only states that the tube can be
inserted to the entrance of the external acoustic meatus
(column 18, lines 65 through 68). Inasmuch as the diameter of
the tube prevents it from being inserted into the external
acoustic meatus in Miura, we agree with appellant’s arguments.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 5,
6, 8 and 9 is reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 7, 11, 16 and 18
through 24 are reversed because the additionally cited
references to Bellafiore, Gefvert and Ward neither teach nor
Appeal No. 1998-0412
Application No. 08/320,935
5
would they have suggested to the skilled artisan the
specifically claimed diameter of the tube that is inserted
into the external acoustic meatus.
Turning next to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
12 through 15 and 25, the examiner acknowledges (answer, page
6) that the sound guide tube attached to the hearing aid in
Bellafiore “does not disclose a space between the sound guide
tube and the external auditory meatus.” According to the
examiner (answer, page 6), Ward discloses “a space between the
guide and the external auditory meatus, for allowing
surrounding noises to enter the external auditory meatus.”
The examiner concludes (answer, page 6) that it would have
been obvious to the skilled artisan to use such a space
between the sound guide tube and the external acoustic meatus
in Bellafiore for the noted benefit. Appellant argues (brief,
page 21) that Ward is completely silent as to the sizing and
the spacing of the tube 60 so that surrounding noises may be
heard. We agree. For this reason, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 12 through 15 and 25 is reversed.
Appeal No. 1998-0412
Application No. 08/320,935
6
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 26 and 27 is
reversed because the teachings of Gefvert do not cure the
noted shortcomings in the teachings of Bellafiore and Ward.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 8
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed, and the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 7, 11 through 16 and 18
through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1998-0412
Application No. 08/320,935
7

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
lp
Appeal No. 1998-0412
Application No. 08/320,935
8
RONALD P. KANANEN, ESQ.
RADAR, FISHMAN & GRAVER P.L.L.C.
1233 20th STREET, N.W., SUITE 501
WASHINGTON DC 20036
Leticia
Appeal No. 1998-0412
Application No. 08/320,935
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ JERRY SMITH
APJ BLANKENSHIP
DECISION: REVERSED
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation (s)
Panel Change: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s):
Prepared: January 11, 2002
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT