Appeal No. 2000-0267 Page 22
Application No. 08/856,943
Turning to the obviousness rejection, the examiner fails
to show that Mattering cures the defect of Tomura.
Mattering’s hair cutting machine 103 does not engage the
reference’s charger. To the contrary, the hair cutting
machine engages Mattering’s adapter 105. Specifically, “the
hair cutting machine 103 is pressed towards the catch loop 111
and interlocks the adapter with the hair cutting machine.” P.
13.
Because Tomura’s lug fits into its portable telephone,
and Mattering’s hair cutting machine interlocks with its
adapter, we are not persuaded that the teachings from the
applied prior art would have suggested the limitations that
"the housing must be displaced with support from the spring
bias to engage the housing with the element disposed on the
cradle member.” Therefore, we reverse the obviousness
rejection of claim 32 and of claims 33 and 34, which depend
therefrom.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007