Appeal No. 1997-4353
Application No. 08/390,102
Moreover, even if such a combination were to be made, it
is our view that the instant claimed subject matter would
still not be reached. While the artisan would have had no
reason to place the sanitizing device 35 in O’Connor on the
handset from the rear of the handset, even if, arguendo, the
teaching of Dale was incorporated into O’Connor in the sense
of a covering placed on the handset from the rear as in
Figures 1 and 2 of Dale, there still would be no structure as
claimed, wherein the mouthpiece and earpiece face covering
portions “fall in place over the respective mouthpiece and
earpiece faces of the telephone handset.” In fact, it does
not appear that O’Connor’s mouthpiece and earpiece face
covering portions are actually in place during telephone use
and Dale, contrary to the examiner’s view, does not appear to
have any cover over either the mouthpiece or the earpiece. In
both embodiments of Dale, endcover 12 appears to surround a
periphery of the mouthpiece and earpiece but the mouthpiece
and earpiece are not covered. Accordingly, we see no way in
which any combination of O’Connor and Dale would meet, or make
obvious, the claimed subject matter.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007