Appeal No. 1999-2381
Application No. 08/586,434
mounting mechanism in Takagi (support bracket 34, 36 of Figure
10) is integrally and rotatably secured to the phone body 4
and that this contrasts with the flip cover of the present
invention being rotatably secured to the support bracket
assembly as recited in sole independent claims 1 and 36.
This distinction is not addressed by the examiner and we
agree with the position taken by appellants. In Takagi, the
flip cover 14 is fixed to mounting portions 34, 36, which
portions the examiner relies on as the support bracket of
claims 1 and 36. Being fixed in position with respect to each
other, the flip cover 14 and support bracket 34, 36 of Takagi
are not rotatably secured to each other. Whereas the combined
teachings of claim 11 of the ‘433 application and Takagi, and
the combined teachings of claim 15 of the ‘433 application and
Takagi do not satisfy all the elements of the sole independent
claims 1 and 36, respectively, and the examiner has not
established that the missing feature of the teachings relied
on would have involved obvious modification thereof, a prima
facie case of obviousness-type double patenting has not been
made by the examiner . 3
3Claims 11 and 15 of the ‘433 application, which claims
correspond to claims 1 and 36 in issue, teach a flip cover
rotatably secured to the top portion of the main housing of
6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007