Appeal No. 1998-1491 Page 9
Application No. 08/654,502
Rejection over Dinkins in view of Martiny
The examiner fails to show that Martiny remedies the
defect of Dinkins. Although the secondary reference teaches
separate r-f and a-f units, the units are not contained in
separate housings. To the contrary, the units are contained
"in one and the same case ...." Col. 1, ll. 31-32.
Because Dinkins and Martiny integrate their circuits into
the same housing, we are not persuaded that teachings from the
prior art would appear to have suggested the claimed
limitations of separate two-way communication circuits
contained in separate housings. The examiner impermissibly
relies on the appellants’ teachings or suggestions. He fails
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 30-57 over Dinkins in view of
Martiny. We next address the rejections over Dinkins in view
of Bhagat, Dinkins in view of Sasaki, or Dinkins in view of
Nonami.
Rejections over Dinkins in view of Bhagat, Sasaki, or Nonami
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007