Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
telephone may be a mobile unit installed in a vehicle (col. 2,
line 41). The combination of Gillig and Duffy establishes a
prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant argues that the "Examiner utterly failed to
provide an explanation of why it would be obvious for a
skilled artisan to seek to make the proposed modifications to
Gillig" (3dRBr12). The motivation is set forth in the
preceding paragraph.
The prima facie case has not been rebutted. The
rejection of claims 27 and 28 is sustained.
9. Claim 47: § 103(a) over Gillig, Fujii, and Duffy
Duffy discloses a wireless telephone unit attached to a
conventional mobile telephone unit. As addressed in the
rejection of claims 27 and 28 in the preceding section, it
would have been obvious to combine the cellular cordless
telephone of Gillig with a mobile telephone unit as taught in
Duffy: (1) to provide the wireless advantages taught by Duffy
(e.g., col. 1, lines 6-21); (2) because Duffy states that any
commercially available telephone unit can be used (col. 3,
line 66, to col. 4, line 1) (which would include a cellular
cordless set as taught by Gillig); and (3) because Gillig
- 28 -
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007