Appeal No. 1998-1491 Page 16
Application No. 08/654,502
having a separate housings in the communication device of
Kinoshita ... to make the communication circuits separable,"
(Examiner's Answer at 6-7), is circular. Also as explained in
addressing the rejections relying on Dinkins as the primary
reference, his reliance on Nerwin as a per se rule of
obviousness, (id. at 7), is legally incorrect.
Because the circuitry of Kinoshita's portable telephone
set 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 Kinoshita’ teaching
of a portable telephone set. The examiner’s 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 Kinoshita in view
of Bhagat, Kinoshita in view of Sasaki, or Kinoshita in view
of Nonami. Next, we address the rejections relying on Hofmann
as the primary reference.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007