Appeal No. 1998-1491 Page 14
Application No. 08/654,502
contained in the same housing. Faced with this defect, the
examiner makes the following allegation.
[I]t would have been obvious ... to incorporate the
well known and patriarchal use of each of the
communication circuit having a separate housings in
the communication device of Kinoshita in order to
make the communication circuits separable. It has
been held that constructing a formerly integral
structure in various elements involves only routine
skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ
177, 179.
(Id. at 6-7.)
The appellants reply, "Kinoshita lacks ... any suggestion
to provide first and second housings." (Appeal Br. at 7.) We
first address the rejection over Kinoshita in view of Martiny.
Rejection over Kinoshita in view of Martiny
The examiner fails to show that Martiny remedies the
defect of Kinoshita. Because Kinoshita 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
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007