Appeal No. 2000-0267 Page 19
Application No. 08/856,943
Turning to the obviousness rejection, the examiner fails
to show that Mattering cures the defect of Tomura. Although
Mattering discloses that “[i]nside the hair cutting machine
1', there is a motor (not shown) and a battery for storing the
electrical energy necessary for operating the motor,” p. 5,
the reference does not show the location of the battery within
the hair cutting machine 1'. We will not “resort to
speculation,” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
178 (CCPA 1967), as to the location of Mattering’s battery
vis-á-vis its catch loop 111.
Because Tomura’s lug fits into the bottom of its portable
telephone, and Mattering does not disclose the location of its
battery, we are not persuaded that the teachings from the
applied prior art would have suggested the limitations of "the
element on the cradle member being spaced from the bottom at
an upper area of the housing receiving area that receives a
middle or top end of the battery . . . .” Therefore, we
reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 26 and of claims 27
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007