Appeal No. 96-1551
Application No. 08/081,426
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to modify
the Ito telephone set by providing the teaching of the
Mizikovsky dual mode telephone system thereto in order
to have more flexibility so that the analog portable
unit can communicate with the digital communication
system.
Appellant argues (Brief, page 4) that:
Mizikovsky . . . does not disclose a system wherein the
portable unit (1) communicates with the base unit (5)
by means of wireless analog signals as set forth in
applicant’s claims. Instead, the portable unit (1) of
Mizikovsky only communicates wirelessly with the fixed
station. Communication between the portable unit (1)
and base unit (5) of the Mizikovsky system, however, is
via a multiconductor connector (42). . . . Thus, there
is no communication between the portable unit (1) of
Mizikovsky and its base unit (5) in the stand-alone
mode; in order for the portable unit (1) to communicate
with the base unit (5) there must be a physical
connection between the two.
We agree. Mizikovsky expressly states (column 6, lines 28
through 30) that analog voice signals from portable unit 1 “are
coupled via connector 42 to mobile unit 5.” The use of the
conductor 42 means that the analog signals are not “radio”2
signals as set forth in the claims on appeal. Thus, we also
agree with appellant (Brief, page 4) that “combining Ito and
Mizikovsky would not result in applicant’s unique system in which
wireless communication is effected by means of analog signals
between the base unit and the handset and digital signals are
2Radio is a form of wireless electrical communication.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007