Appeal No. 96-2741
Application 08/227,093
request for rehearing to the extent it requests reversal of
our decision with respect to the rejection of claim 11 over
Kotitalo.
Appellants similarly argue that "[Watanabe] only
discloses one cradle which the door 2 is pivotably mounted to"
(RR4). The same arguments made with respect to Kotitalo apply
to Watanabe. The telephone in Watanabe is cradled both by the
holder 3 and by the door 2 (figure 8). Appellants have not
convinced us that a telephone can have only a single cradle or
that part of the structure that supports the telephone cannot
be termed a cradle. Appellants have not convinced us that it
was error to consider the door 2 to be a cradle. Accordingly,
we deny appellants' request for rehearing to the extent it
requests reversal of our decision with respect to the
rejection of claim 11 over Watanabe.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007