Appeal No. 1998-2708
Application No. 08/459,361
Appellants further argue that neither Gillig nor Morais
teaches or suggests wireless terminal stations (WTS) which are
inhibited or enabled by a control means (EDC) depending on
whether or not a cordless telephone (WT) is being used (brief-
pages 13 and 14), regarding claim 1. The Examiner responds
that Gillig “discloses an ‘audio switch [which] selects
between audio signals of audio circuitry in the cordless
transceiver and audio circuitry in the cellular transceiver
under control of select signals.’ (reference characters
omitted).” (Answer-page 4.)
We agree with Appellants. Gillig’s audio switch
selection is unrelated to inhibiting or enabling a wireless
terminal station (WTS). In a broad sense, Gillig’s switch
could be considered to be the control means (EDC).
Additionally, when the audio circuitry is disconnected from
the cordless transceiver it would inhibit the cordless
transceiver. Concurrently, when the audio circuitry is
connected to the cellular transceiver, it would enable the
cellular transceiver. However, element 10 of Gillig is not a
wireless terminal station (WTS) as claimed since it is not
connected to subscriber lines (LS) as claimed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007