Appeal No. 2000-1555
Application No. 08/922,929
to a straighter configuration, we find that the reference
teachings lack the limitation of “a radio handset demountable
from the wearable element,” as recited in claim 1. As discussed
above, the radio handset of Blonder includes telephone case 4,
part of strap 10 and top layer 12 which are not demountable and
remain attached to each other during operation by a user.
In view of the analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to meet the burden of providing a prima facie case of
anticipation. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7,
9, 10,1 12-24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Blonder cannot be
sustained.
We note that the Examiner relies on Seager and Olsen in
combination with Blonder to reject claims 5, 6 and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Seager teaches a demountable radio handset
which is reconfigured to a straighter position by unfolding stiff
elongated members at pivotal connection points. Olsen, on the
other hand, teaches a radiotelephone in the form of a wrist watch
that may be worn around the wrist or used as a radio handset when
the strap ends are not connected. Although Olsen describes the
strap material as being flexible enough to go around the wrist,
1 Claim 10 depends upon the canceled claim 2, which should be
corrected before allowance.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007