Appeal No. 2004-1822
Application No. 09/550,863
references does not suggest the claimed invention.
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection of claim 1
(and also dependent claims 2-3).
Claim 8
With regard to claim 8, we observe that claim 8 is different
from claim 1 because it does not require a circuit configured to
couple the speaker connection to the microphone connection.
We find that Fujiwara teaches acoustic coupling between
receiver 12 and microphone 15, for a radio phone, which is a
wireless phone. See Figure 1, column 4, lines 16-32, and column
1, lines 9-14 of Fujiwara.
The above-mentioned teaching of Fujiwara makes obvious the
subject matter of claim 8 because claim 8 merely requires a
method comprising receiving a signal from a speaker connection
and transferring that signal from the speaker connection to a
microphone connection. Claims 9-11 depend upon claim 8. The
subject matter of claim 9 (attenuation) is suggested by Fujiwara
(see item 16 in Figure 1). The subject matter of claim 10
(delaying the signal) is also suggested in Fujiwara (column 4,
lines 46-47).
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 8-
10.
In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, but
affirm the rejection of claims 8-10, under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
being unpatentable over DeJaco in view of Fujiwara and Hardy and
Larkin and Hendershot.
DeJaco and Fujiwara.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007