Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
compartment 207 for storing the handset 105; this compartment
is broadly considered to be a cradle. Appellant merely argues
that Crane does not disclose a cradle (3dRBr8), without
addressing the teachings of Crane. The rejection of claim 68
is sustained.
Claim 73 is similar to claim 67 and is anticipated for
the reasons stated in that analysis. Appellant does not argue
the separate patentability of dependent claims 74-76; hence,
these claims fall together with claim 73. The anticipation
rejection of claims 73-76 is sustained.
Appellant's only argument with respect to claim 77 is
that the subject matter of claim 77 is fully disclosed in
grandparent Application 07/627,189 ('189 application), filed
December 13, 1990, and therefore Crane is inapplicable as a
reference against claim 77 (3dRBr9). The Examiner states that
the claimed "cordless base station including a cellular
telephone instrument" was not disclosed in the '189
application and, so, the claim is not entitled to the earlier
date (3dSEA76). Appellant does not rebut the Examiner's
statement in his Fourth Reply Brief; hence, the correctness of
- 22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007