Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
telephone base station for the purpose of allowing the user to
handle more than one call. Thus, the Examiner has established
a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in relying on
mere duplication of parts (3dRBr11). It is not necessary to
rely on this alternative reasoning by the Examiner.
Appellant argues that the "Examiner has utterly failed to
provide evidence to the effect that a skilled artisan would
have found it obvious to seek to provide two hardwire
telephone connections to a single base telephone apparatus"
(3dRBr12). This argument ignores and does not deny the
Examiner's finding that it was well known in the telephone art
to provide multiple lines to a single telephone set. Further,
Appellant has failed to address the teachings of Yorita.
The prima facie case has not been rebutted. The
rejection of claim 7 is sustained.
8. Claims 27 and 28: § 103(a) over Gillig and Duffy
Claim 27 depends on claim 15 and calls for a "cordless
base station for the cordless-cellular telephone."
Presumably, this refers to the cordless base station DFBS1 in
Appellant's figure 14. The Examiner relies on Duffy. Duffy
- 26 -
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007