Appeal No. 1997-2760
Application No. 08/302,133
independently” is intended to describe the communication
between the control panel and the base station, and not the
operation of the telephone set as urged by the Examiner.
We further agree with Appellants that proper English
rules of syntax support the interpretation that the term
“operable independently”, preceded by a comma, must modify the
term “means” and not the noun phrase “telephone set” farther
back in the sentence. The Examiner’s dictionary citation
(Supplemental Answer, page 14) of proper comma usage is not
persuasive since the terms in question are not coordinate
adjectives.
Since all of the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 10, 13, and 14, nor of claims 2-5, 7, 11,
and 12 dependent thereon.
Finally, we have reviewed the disclosures of Yaniv,
Krisbergh, and Nash, applied by the Examiner to address
various features of the appealed dependent claims. We find
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007