Appeal No. 96-1489
Application 08/139,876
5 of the Answer and the additional rationale in the responsive
arguments portion at page 9 of the Answer appear to us to be
conclusory
and presumptive. We do not understand from the examiner’s
position why the artisan would have found it obvious to have
used the capability of Gillig for the user to select between a
cordless and cellular telephone mode and to translate this
capability into an analog or digital selectability by the user
in the analog/digital phone in Dahlin. The examiner simply
has not developed any persuasive rationale for achieving this
modification in Dahlin from Gillig’s teachings other than
simply concluding that the user would therefor have the
ability to manually select analog or digital modes.
Additionally, to the extent the examiner’s position that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to make prior art
devices nonautomatic or manually operable when the prior art
teaches an automatic means to do so, or would have been
obvious to the artisan because it involves only routine skill
in the art, is also presumptuous and conclusory. Obviousness
within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 requires some degree of rationale to support such a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007