Appeal No. 1998-2708
Application No. 08/459,361
Considering the wireless terminal stations (WTS) of
Morais, we find no hint that it would be desirable to enable
or inhibit any of them and use a cordless telephone in an
alternative manner as recited in claim 1. It remains unclear
as to exactly what the Examiner intends to modify in Morais.
If the Examiner is indicating that one of Morais’s remote
stations (WTS), 14, 16, or 18, be replaced by element 10 of
Gillig, we find this would not meet the requirements of claim
1 for the alternative communication by subscriber lines. If
the Examiner is indicating that telephone sets (T) be replaced
by element 10 of Gillig, we find this would also not meet the
requirements of claim 1 for the alternative communication by
subscriber lines. The broad use of Gillig’s teachings
(discussed supra) to modify Morais in the manner claimed can
only be found in Appellants’ disclosure. As argued by
Appellants, hindsight reconstruction is not permitted (brief-
page 24).
With respect to independent claim 3, Appellants argue
that Gillig’s cordless base station 180 cannot be considered
as the claimed repeater as suggested by the Examiner (brief-
page 32). We agree. If base station 180 were considered to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007