Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art all the features
of a conventional cordless telephone handset. Hong is
directed to the inductive battery charging feature and it need
not describe what is well known in the art and not important
to the invention. See Paperless Accounting, Inc. v. Bay Area
Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 664, 231 USPQ 649, 652
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, Appellant's argument is not
persuasive.
Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly equated
Hong's element 40 to Appellant's handset. Appellant errs
because the Examiner clearly referred to "handset (#18) having
a handset transceiver (#40)" (2dSEA28). In any case, however,
Appellant should know what constitutes the handset in Hong.
Appellant has failed to rebut the prima facie case of
anticipation. Therefore, the rejection of claim 9 is
sustained.
3. Claim 15: § 102(e) over Gillig
Claim 15 is directed to the system shown in Appellant's
figure 17. However, the terms "first," "second," etc. do not
correspond to the description in the specification at page 32.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007