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