Appeal No. 97-3059
Application No. 08/251,014
concludes that it would have been obvious to combine these
teachings. We disagree.
The “basic module” (analog phone 1) in Mizikovsky is
clearly capable of transmitting and receiving on its own
whether or not it is connected to the digital unit 5 (although
when so connected, it operates as a digital phone). Tattari
discloses the construction of a radio telephone from a
manufacturer’s standpoint. While it is true that one unit of
Tattari’s phone will be incapable of transmitting and
receiving until it is connected to another section, completing
the construction of the phone, we find no relevance to the
Mizikovsky device. Since the analog, or “basic,” unit of
Mizikovsky, is operative on its own, we fail to find any
reason for the artisan to have been led, from any teachings of
Tattari, to make unit 1 of Mizikovsky inoperable unless
connected to another unit. The examiner’s reasoning, i.e.,
“in order to have different modes of operation for the radio
telephone” [bottom of page 3 of the answer], is not persuasive
since Mizikovsky already discloses different modes of
operation without having to leave unit 1 inoperable unless
connected to another module. There would have been no reason,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007