Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
deficiency. The rejection of claim 65 and its dependent
claims 68 and 70 is reversed.
With respect to the rejection of claim 75, Emmert does
not cure the deficiency in the combination of Gillig and
Schellinger with respect to claim 73. Therefore, the
rejection of claim 75 is reversed.
21. Claim 69: § 103(a) over Gillig,
Schellinger, Emmert, and Hong
Hong is applied to teach contactless battery recharging
of a battery in the handset. Hong does not supply the missing
teaching of a cellular telephone instrument in the cordless
base station to provide communication with a cellular
telephone base station in claim 67. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 69 is reversed.
22. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 15, 27, 28, 30, 43-47, 58,
and 65-77: judicially created double patenting
The Examiner relies on In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350,
158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968) (so-called Schneller-type double
patenting). Schneller is an obviousness-type double patenting
case with a special fact situation. Schneller applies to
those situations where: (1) the subject matter recited in the
- 46 -
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007