Appeal No. 1998-1491 Page 12
Application No. 08/654,502
conclusions impermissibly rely on the appellants' teachings or
suggestions to piece together the teachings of the prior art.
He fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we reverse the rejections of claims 30-57 over
Dinkins in view of Bhagat, Dinkins in view of Sasaki, or
Dinkins in view of Nonami. Next, we address the rejections
relying on Kinoshita as the primary reference.
Rejections Relying on Kinoshita
Although Kinoshita teaches first and second
communications circuits that provide two-way communication,
col. 1, ll. 39-41 ("a radio frequency circuit of the private
radio frequency channels in addition to the radio frequency of
the urban cellular
radio telephone"), the examiner admits that the primary
reference "does not disclose that each of the communication
2(...continued)
communication circuits contained in separate housings, the
communication provided by the circuits is not two-way. To the
contrary, it is a one-way paging signal. Accordingly, we are
also not persuaded that teachings from any of these references
alone would appear to have suggested the claimed limitations
of separate two-way communication circuits contained in
separate housings.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007