Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
We disagree with the Examiner's reasoning. The
microcellular system is intended to cover a much wider area
than the home or office area covered by a cordless system and,
moreover, is part of a cellular telephone company service, not
a (normally) private cordless system. There is no motivation,
express or implied, to combine the two types of systems. "The
mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266,
23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
However, even if there was motivation for the combination, we
do not see how the combination meets the limitation of claim 1
for the second transceiver to communicate with a cellular
telephone system, unless the Examiner is relying on some
unstated interpretation of the claim. The microcellular
system communicates with the TELCO over hardwire telephone
lines, not with a cellular telephone system like 103.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 and 5 is reversed.
- 42 -
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007