Appeal No. 2000-1592
Application 08/661,220
OPINION
From our consideration of the teachings and suggestions of
the applied prior art, taken in light of the claimed invention,
further in view of the positions set forth by the examiner and
appellant, we sustain the rejection of argued independent claims
1, 6, 7, and 18 and dependent claims 16, 21 and 24. and reverse
the rejection of independent claims 9 and 25, as well as
dependent claims 5, 8, 10, 13, 26, and 27. Because no arguments
have been presented in the brief and reply brief as to claims 3,
4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23, they also fall with
our consideration of their respective parent claims.
In relying upon the final rejection for the examiner's
statement of the rejection, the examiner considers that the
recitation in each of the independent claims on appeal of three
support points in a triangular position is met by the two guide
fins 5 and the two charging contacts 3 in Figures 1 and 2 of
Léman. The examiner considers it would have been obvious to
have removed one of these support points in Léman since it was
known in the art that redundant components (from 4 to 3) in Léman
would still support and charge a mobile phone or equipment.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007