Ex parte GILLIG et al. - Page 8

          Appeal No. 1998-1491                                       Page 8           
          Application No. 08/654,502                                                  

               Although Dinkins teaches first and second communications               
          circuits that provide two-way communication, the examiner                   
          admits that the primary reference "does not disclose that each              
          of the communication circuit having [sic] a separate                        
          housings."  (Examiner's Answer at 3.)  To the contrary,                     
          Figures 3 and 4 of Dinkins show all the communications                      
          circuitry of mobile subscriber unit 20 as contained in the                  
          same housing.  Faced with this defect, the examiner makes the               
          following allegation.                                                       
               [I]t would have been obvious ... to incorporate the                    
               well known and patriarchal use of each of the                          
               communication circuit having a separate housings in                    
               the communication device of Dinkins in order to make                   
               the communication circuits separable.  It has been                     
               held that constructing a formerly integral structure                   
               in various elements involves only routine skill in                     
               the art.  Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.                      
          (Id. at 4-5.)                                                               

               The appellants reply, "While the Examiner has cited                    
          references that show separate communication circuits in                     
          separate housings, the prior art lacks any motivation to                    
          combine Dinkins with such references."  (Appeal Br. at 5.)  We              
          first address the rejection over Dinkins in view of Martiny.                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007