Appeal No. 1997-4353
Application No. 08/390,102
obvious to combine Dale with O’Connor, modifying O’Connor’s
protector with a central portion and adhesive means encircling
the handset handle and further modifying O’Connor’s protector
by extending the mouthpiece and earpiece portions from the
rear of the handset.
In our view, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed
subject matter.
While at first glance, the applied references appear to
be relevant to the instant claimed subject matter, further
analysis reveals little in common between not only the applied
references themselves but also between the applied references
and the instant claimed subject matter.
While the instant claimed subject matter is directed to a
protector for a telephone handset wherein the user is
protected from contamination from portions of the telephone in
normal user contact areas of the handle, O’Connor is directed
to a disinfecting device for a telephone handset and Dale is
directed not to the protection of a telephone user but,
rather, to the protection of the telephone itself from damage.
Now, it may be convincingly argued that, as claimed, e.g.,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007