Appeal No. 1998-1491 Page 11 Application No. 08/654,502 separate housings in the communication device of Dinkins ... to make the communication circuits separable." (Examiner's Answer at 4-5.) Rather than being persuasive, such a conclusion is circular. The examiner also attempts to circumvent the requirement to show desirability by relying on Nerwin as a per se rule of obviousness. (Id. at 5.) Such “reliance on per se rules of obviousness is legally incorrect and must cease. Any such administrative convenience is simply inconsistent with section 103 ....” In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1570, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Because the circuitry of Dinkins' mobile subscriber unit operates as an integral unit, we are not persuaded that the prior art would have suggested the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of combining either Bhagat, Sasaki, or Nonami teaching of using separate housings with either Dinkins’ teaching of a mobile subscriber unit. The examiner’s 2 2Although Bhagat, Sasaki, and Nonami each teach separate (continued...)Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007