Appeal No. 2004-1822
Application No. 09/550,863
III. The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 4 and 11
With regard to claim 4, because claim 4 depends upon claim
1, we also reverse the rejection of claim 4.
With regard to claim 11, claim 11 depends upon claim 8.
Claim 11 concerns canceling side-tones from the signal. The
examiner relies upon Sears for teaching this aspect of the
claimed invention. Appellants do not dispute the findings made
by the examiner regarding Sears. See pages 30-31 of the
supplemental brief. Hence, we affirm the rejection of claim 11.
In summary, we therefore reverse the rejection of claim 4,
but affirm the rejection of claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
being unpatentable over DeJaco and Fujiwara and further in view
of Sears.
IV. The rejection of claims 5-7, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §103
as being unpatentable over DeJaco and Fujiwara and further
in view of Snapp
Claim 5 also requires a circuit configured to couple a
speaker connection to a microphone connection. Hence, for the
same reasons that we reversed the rejection of claim 1, we also
reverse the rejection of claim 5 (and dependent claims 6 and 7).
With regard to claim 12, claim 12 does not require a circuit
configured to couple a speaker connection to a microphone
connection. Claim 12 recites receiving a signal from a speaker
connection of a first hands-free jack and transferring that
signal from the speaker connection to a microphone connection of
a second hands-free jack of a second wireless telephone.
The examiner basically relies upon Snapp for teaching a
remote cellular test set that can connect to multiple cellular
phones that are coupled together via a loop access. The phones
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007