Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple
telephone lines to a cordless telephone base station for the
purpose of allowing the user to handle more than one call.
The combination of Gillig and Bartholomew establishes a prima
facie case of obviousness.
Appellant argues that Bartholomew does not describe a
telephone apparatus permitting two telephone calls,
"especially not in combination with, or in the context of, the
particular 'cordless telephone system' defined by claim 7"
(RBr8). One of ordinary skill in the telephone art would have
had sufficient skill to apply multiple lines known in
conventional telephone sets to cordless telephone sets.
The prima facie case has not been rebutted. The
rejection of claim 7 is sustained.
13. Claims 58-60: § 103(a) over Gillig and Hong
We refer to the discussion in section 10, supra, for a
discussion of the prima facie case over the combination of
Gillig and Hong.
Appellant argues (RBr8) that the Examiner erred in
stating that "it would have been obvious . . . to use the
inductive charging technique taught by Hong in the system
- 34 -
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007