Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
inductive charging between the base unit 12 and the handset 18
(col. 3, line 29, to col. 4, line 27). Hong does not disclose
a combined cellular cordless telephone instrument.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
incorporate the cellular cordless feature of Kinoshita or
Gillig in the rechargeable handset of Hong to provide the
advantages of a cellular cordless telephone instrument
(2dSEA57). Stated differently, it would have been obvious to
provide inductive battery charging as taught by Hong in the
cellular cordless telephone system of Gillig or Kinoshita to
overcome the problem of contamination of mechanical contacts
which exist in any mechanical contact charger. In our
opinion, the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Appellant argues that the rejection fails to point out
where Hong teaches a "portable wireless telephone instrument"
as defined on page 47 of the specification (3dRBr13). Hong
expressly teaches that the inductive recharging structure is
applicable to a charging a portable radio telephone (col. 2,
lines 8-11) and radio telephone includes a cordless telephone
(col. 1, lines 21-24). In figure 1, the portable handset 18
- 30 -
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007