Appeal No. 1998-1491 Page 10
Application No. 08/654,502
Although Bhagat, Sasaki, or Nonami each teach separate
communication circuits contained in separate housings, the
examiner fails to identify a sufficient suggestion to combine
any of the secondary references with Dinkins. “‘[T]he
question is whether there is something in the prior art as a
whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness,
of making the combination.’” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309,
1311-12, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Here, the teachings of Dinkins reveal that the circuitry
of its mobile subscriber unit operates as an integral unit to
relay data between a fixed cellular base station 10 and a
remote handset 30. Col. 3, l. 66 - col. 5. l. 40. Rather
than providing a line of reasoning to explain why combining
Bhagat's, Sasaki's, or Nonami's teaching of using separate
housings for separate circuits with Dinkins’ integral unit
would have been desirable, the examiner merely concludes, “it
would have been obvious ... to incorporate the well known and
patriarchal use of ... the communication circuit having a
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007