Appeal No. 2000-0267 Page 4
Application No. 08/856,943
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 22-34 as anticipated and in
rejecting claims 22 and 26-34 as obvious. We are also
persuaded that he did not err in rejecting claims 23-25 as
obvious. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellants in toto, we address their points of contention. We
begin with a point that concerns all the claims. The
appellants argue, “Mattinger et al. (EP 0341395) is directed
to an electric hair cutter. This is not analogous art.”
(Appeal Br. at 7.) The examiner answers, “cell-phones and
heir [sic] cutters are considered as common house hold [sic]
devices, they both require charging and support, one skilled
in the art could easily apply the support feature of a cell
phone to the cutter, or vice versa.” (Examiner’s Answer at
11.) He adds, “[i]n fact, Mattering is submitted by appellant
due to a search report for a foreign patent application.”
(Id.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007