Appeal No. 1997-4353
Application No. 08/390,102
While independent claim 10 uses slightly different
language and does not refer to the mouthpiece and earpiece
portions extending from the “rear” and falling “in place,” the
claim still calls for a “unitary flat sheet of sound permeable
tissue” and having a certain configuration whereby the central
portion lies in the open palm and fingers of the user’s hand
so as to wrap the sheet around the handset and so as to have
the mouthpiece and earpiece portions “foldable...” Thus, the
claim requires “sound permeable tissue” and, as discussed
supra, Dale is devoid of any such teaching and, to the extent
O’Connor teaches such, O’Connor’s device is not used when the
telephone is in use or, as claimed, “during ordinary use of
said telephone handset.” Moreover, neither of the references
teaches nor suggests mouthpiece and earpiece portions of the
flat unitary structure which are foldable with respect to the
rest of the sheet.
Further, the “adhesive means,” as set forth in each of
the independent claims, is not taught or suggested by either
of the references. While O’Connor teaches adhesive material
23, 42, 43 in securing the disinfectant device to the
telephone handset, it is not taught as an “adhesive coated
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007