Appeal No. 1998-2870
Application 08/429,954
can be made external to a standard telephone; and (2) the fact
that Snyder discloses that it was known to provide other kinds of
add-on devices for standard telephones. We find very strong
suggestions to combine the teachings of Biggs and Snyder.
Appellants argue that Snyder does not suggest separating the
disclosed features of Biggs because Snyder must disable the
telephone which is the exact opposite of Biggs (Br10). The
operation of Snyder does not affect Snyder's teaching of
providing the service device as a separate external device.
Also, as discussed, infra, Snyder only disables the telephone
during operation of the amenities service device after which the
telephone is turned back on while the micro controller remains
enabled. This is not inconsistent with Biggs.
Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly relied on
their disclosure as motivation for the combination (Br12-13).
We agree with the Examiner's finding (EA6; EA9) that making a
separate unit apart from the telephone to save cost was
notoriously well known. This finding is supported by Snyder's
description of add-on devices (col. 1, lines 5-12). In any case,
however, Snyder expressly teaches that an amenities service
device can be made as a separate external unit. Accordingly, the
Examiner did not rely on hindsight.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007