Appeal No. 2000-0267 Page 14
Application No. 08/856,943
pack 252 . . . .” Col. 9, ll. 12-16. The examiner fails to
show, however, that disengaging the portable telephone 250
with battery pack 252 from the charger 210 would further
deform the charging terminals 236. To the contrary, the
rounded edges of the battery pack 252 suggest that pivoting
the portable telephone 250 on the lug 218 of the charger 210
to remove the telephone with its battery pack therefrom would
not deform the charging terminals 236 any more than they are
deformed during charging. Figs. 16 and 17.
Because there is no showing that disengaging Tomura’s
portable telephone with battery pack from its charger would
further deform the charging terminals, we are not persuaded
that the reference discloses the limitations that "the housing
must be displaced against the spring bias to disengage the
housing from the element disposed on the cradle member . . .
.” Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim
23 and of claims 24 and 25, which depend from claim 23.
Turning to the obviousness rejection, Mattering discloses
that a hair cutting machine with a built-in battery must be
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007