Appeal No. 1999-1091
Application No. 08/273,790
a first controller controlling said radio telephone set circuit to
transmit the corresponding response message via said fixed
radio apparatus to said caller.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Mizikovsky 5,559,860 Sept. 24, 1996
(filed Jun. 11, 1992)
Helferich 5,003,576 Mar. 26, 1991
Davis 4,942,598 July 17, 1990
Claims 1 to 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis in view of Helferich and Mizikovsky.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
For all of the reasons expressed by the examiner (answer, pages 4
through 8), and for the additional reasons presented infra, we will sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 14.
We agree with the examiner that Davis discloses a telephone apparatus
that functions in the manner set forth in the claims on appeal (answer, page 4).
We likewise agree with the examiner that Helferich discloses the use of voice
messaging in connection with a radio telephone system (Abstract), and that it
would have been manifestly obvious to the skilled artisan to apply the teachings
of Helferich to those of Davis to add “portability” to the Davis telephone system
(answer, pages 4 and 5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007