Appeal No. 97-2762
Application No. 08/309,845
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the rejections as to claims 29 through 45
and 47 through 61, and we will reverse the rejections as to
claims 12 through 28 and 46.
The examiner’s analysis of the teachings of Shitara is as
follows (Answer, page 4):
Consider claims 12-17, 20, 22, 29-34, 37, 46-57.
Shitara et al. disclose in figure 1 an apparatus (5)
for alternatingly coupling a landline telephone (7)
to either a landline link or a radio link comprising
first means (6) for coupling the landline telephone
to a landline link to the central station (8) of a
telephone network; second means (i.e. the wiring
coupling the landline telephone to the PBX 5) for
coupling the landline telephone to a radio link via
the radio transceiver units (2); switching means (in
the PBX 5) for switching a connection between the
landline link and the radio link. As is clear from
the figure, if the landline telephone places a call
to a radiotelephone (1), then the connection to the
radio network is via a part of the landline (i.e.
via the wiring coupling the phone 7 to the PBX 5)
before the actual radio link commences and,
alternatively, if the landline telephone places or
receives a call over the landline link (i.e. via the
PSTN), a portion of this landline link is utilized
(i.e the same interior premises telephone wiring
coupling the landline telephone to the PBX).
Appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that:
The language used in the claims, as delimited by the
specification, is directed to alternately connecting
a land-type phone to one of a switched, land-line
telephone network or to a radio system, such as the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007