Appeal No. 2000-1592
Application 08/661,220
met by the teachings and showings in Léman, we sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 16. Figure 2 of Léman shows two
different sized (that is two different thicknesses) of two phones
labeled 2 and 7. Appellant's argument at pages 9 and 10 of the
brief on appeal is misplaced to the extent it is argued that the
lateral distance between the sidewall portions 4 may not be
varied. This is not the manner in which the "family of phones"
of Léman may be accommodated in a single base element or battery
charger 1. It is the depth shown in Figure 2 accorded to the
different thicknesses of phone elements 2 and 7 that may be
accommodated and not any change in the width dimension between
the wall portions 4.
We also reverse the rejection of dependent claims 10 and 13
because we are unpersuaded by the examiner's reasoning at page 4
of the final rejection that it would have been obvious for the
artisan to have utilized the teachings of Hashimoto incorporated
into the system of Léman. Each of dependent claims 10 and 13
require electrical contacts which are separate from the three
support points recited in their respective parent independent
claims. The examiner's proposal to utilize the charging elements
contacts 11 and 12 of the base 8 in Figure 1 of Hashimoto, along
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007