Appeal No. 1997-4353
Application No. 08/390,102
disinfecting device does not appear to be employed when the
telephone is in use.
Clearly, O’Connor, which doesn’t even appear to disclose
a device which is to be used while the telephone is in use,
does not disclose such a unitary structure as claimed. The
structure in O’Connor’s Figure 2 is to be placed on the front
of the handset for disinfecting. It is not placed on the
handset from the rear wherein mouthpiece and earpiece face
portions “fall in place” over the respective mouthpiece and
earpiece faces of the telephone handset.
Turning to Dale to supply the deficiency of O’Connor is
to no avail. Dale is not directed to disinfecting the
telephone handset as in O’Connor, but, rather, to the
protection of the handset itself from damage by vandals, for
example. The handset covering in Dale has a strong shank 16
and the cover is made of impact energy absorbing material.
Therefore, it is not clear why the skilled artisan having
O’Connor before him/her and seeking to perhaps extend the
protection afforded by O’Connor’s device would even look to
Dale for guidance. Thus, we see nothing that would have led
the artisan to combine the teachings of O’Connor and Dale.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007