Appeal No. 97-2762
Application No. 08/309,845
between the telephone 7 and the plurality of telephones 1-1
and 1-m, the radio link does not connect the telephone 7 to
the access units (i.e., base stations) 2-1 through 2-l as
required by claim 12. The examiner recognizes this by stating
(Answer, page 4) "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." (Emphasis added).
Based upon the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 12 is reversed because Shibata discloses a
wired link as opposed to a "radio link that connects a land-
line, telephonic communication device to a base station of the
radio link." As a result of the reversal of the 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) rejection of claim 12, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of dependent claims 13 through 17, 20 and 22, and the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims 18, 19, 21 and 23
through 28 are likewise reversed.
If the claimed "second means" corresponds to "the wiring
coupling the landline telephone to the PBX 5" (Answer, page
4), then we agree with appellants’ argument (Reply Brief, page
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007