Appeal No. 2000-1555
Application No. 08/922,929
holds the wrist watch in its open position instead of wearing the
handset with the speaker extended out.
Based on our analysis of the prior art, we remain
unpersuaded by the Examiner’s arguments that the biased top layer
of Blonder can be combined with Olsen. In that regard, while a
part of strap in the radio handset of Blonder is biased to a
straighter configuration, there is no teaching or suggestion for
modifying the entire strap in the phone device of Olsen to arrive
at the radio handset of claim 25. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 25 over Olsen and Blonder.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-24 and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 and rejecting claims 5, 6, 11 and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We make the following new ground of rejection for claim
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Blonder pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Blonder. Initially, we note that claim 25, unlike claim 1,
merely recites a radio handset including a flexible portion which
is “deformable between a curved configuration and a straighter
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007