Ex parte GILLIG et al. - Page 9

          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                 

            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