Appeal No. 2000-0267 Page 12
Application No. 08/856,943
a "peg section [that] protrudes from a wall of the receiving
compartment in an angled direction generally towards the
spring contact" or an "element on the cradle member being
angled towards a bottom of a housing receiving area of the
cradle member . . . .” Therefore, we reverse the obviousness
rejection of claim 22, of claim 29, and of claims 30 and 31,
which depend from claim 29. We proceed to the second group of
claims.
II. Claims 23-25
The examiner asserts, “according to Tomura's Figs. 16-17,
the phone can be removed by first removing the speaker end of
the phone. As the speaker end of the phone is pulled upward,
the phone pivots at lug (218), then the microphone end of the
phone is forced downward, in turn pushing, or deflecting the
spring (236) down . . . .” (Examiner’s Answer at 8.) He
further asserts, “as the end part (Mattering and [sic] 118) is
moved outward, the spring (116) is deflected to allow the peg
section (111) to be disengaged with the slot (108).” (Id.
at 11.) The appellants argue, “[t]here is no disclosure or
suggestion of the telephone being displaced against the spring
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007