Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
taught by Gillig '230 in order to isolate the hand set from
the power source so as to avoid an accidental power surge"
(EA9). Appellant argues that there is no general reason to
believe that Gillig's cellular cordless telephone is
susceptible to power surges (RBr8). We are not sure where the
Examiner got the motivation about avoiding power surges;
however, Hong provides express motivation to use an inductive
charging circuit to overcome the problems of mechanical
contacts. The references clearly suggest the combination.
The prima facie case has not been rebutted. The
rejection of claims 58-60 is sustained.
14. Claim 27: § 103(a) over Gillig, Sakanishi, and Stoodley
Claim 27 depends from claim 15. In the [Second]
Supplemental Examiner's Answer, the Examiner withdrew the
rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gilling and
Sakanishi (2dSEA25) and entered a new ground of rejection
under § 102(e) over Gillig; thus, Sakanishi is not required
for the rejection. We have sustained the § 102 rejection of
claim 15 over Gillig.
Claim 27 recites that "the first transceiver and the
first antenna are combined with a first battery and integrated
- 35 -
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007