Appeal No. 1998-0493
Application 08/364,000
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
With regard to the rejection of claim 1, the
Examiner takes the position that Saito teaches all the
limitations of the claim except signaling the base station to
release the channel. The Examiner then takes Official Notice
that it is well known to signal the base station to release
the channel, and evidences this notice via Kerr and Lee. The
Examiner indicates
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the well known channel release with Saito.
(Answer-pages 3 and 4.)
Appellant does not contest that Saito teaches the
basic radio telephone limitations recited in claim 1.
Appellant even acknowledges that Saito provides for
conversation ending. However, Appellant argues that Saito’s
conversation ending places the unit in a waiting state until
such time that operating voltage is restored, and then resumes
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007