Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
Appellant argues that "Kinoshita does not clearly
describe his 'telephone set' as being 'portable' or
'wireless'" (3dRBr6). Figure 3 of Kinoshita clearly shows a
person holding a portable or mobile telephone set 20.
Appellant argues that "Kinoshita does not describe his
'telephone set' as being 'operable controllably to provide for
wireless telephonic connection with the first and/or the
second base-station'" (3dRBr6). The operator in Kinoshita can
manually select between the public cellular system and the
private radio telephone system or the mode can be done
automatically (col. 6, lines 32-61), which satisfies the
limitation of "controllably." The term "and/or" is a broad
alternative term that is met by either "and" or "or";
Kinoshita clearly discloses the connection with the public
cellular "or" the private system.
Appellant has failed to rebut the prima facie case of
anticipation. Therefore, the rejection of claim 30 is
sustained. Appellant does not argue the separate
patentability of dependent claims 43-45; hence, these claims
fall with claim 30. Thus, the rejection of claims 43-45 is
also sustained.
- 19 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007