Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
"a third location" (shown as public telephone PTx at
location X in Appellant's figure 17). The cellular cordless
telephone 10 corresponds to the claimed "cordless-cellular
telephone" at "a fourth location" (shown as the dual function
hand-piece DFHPw in Appellant's figure 17). Gillig
establishes a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 15.
Appellant argues that the "Examiner has failed to show
clearly what element in Gillig's Fig. 1 corresponds to what
element of Applicant's claimed invention" (3dRBr4) and argues
that the Examiner has failed to make a prima facie showing.
This style of argument is totally unpersuasive and is not in
compliance with Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) rules. PTO
rules require that, in addressing a section 102 rejection, an
applicant specify "any specific limitations in the rejected
claims which are not described in the prior art relied upon in
the rejection." 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) (1997). Appellant
does not point out any errors in the rejection.
Appellant has failed to rebut the prima facie case of
anticipation. Therefore, the rejection of claim 15 is
sustained.
4. Claims 30 and 43-45: § 102(e) over Kinoshita
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007