Appeal No. 2000-1555
Application No. 08/922,929
but stiff enough to hold the microphone and the speaker in proper
position (col. 3, line 66 through col. 4, line 2), nothing in the
reference indicates that the strap is biased to the straighter
configuration. Assuming, arguendo, that it would have been
obvious to combine the radiotelephone device of Blonder with the
teachings of Olsen or Seager as held by the Examiner, Seager and
Olsen do not overcome the deficiencies in the rejection of base
claim 1 discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 5 and 6 over Blonder and
Seager and of claim 11 over Blonder and Olsen.
Turning to the rejection of claim 25, Appellant relies on
the arguments made with respect to claim 1 above and adds that,
similar to Blonder, Olsen fails to teach or suggest that the
strap is biased to a straighter configuration (brief, pages 9 &
10). In response, the Examiner refers to the discussion of the
teachings of Blonder with respect to top layer 12, as applied to
claim 1 (answer, page 12).
As discussed above, the top layer in Blonder is biased to
the straighter configuration to position the speaker in the palm
of the user’s hand while the remaining part of the handset is
worn around the wrist as the user operates the phone. On the
other hand, a review of Olsen determines that the strap is both
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007