Appeal No. 2000-1592
Application 08/661,220
examiner's rejection of claims 25 and 27 is logically flawed
because claim 25 cannot be met by Léman and its dependent claim
27, dependent through intermediate dependent claim 26, cannot be
met as well. Additionally, the inclusion of claim 26 in the
third stated rejection of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
103, that involving Léman in view of Hellier, also cannot be
sustained because we have not sustained the rejection of its
parent independent claim 25.
On the other hand, we do sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 21, and 24 in light of the collective
teachings and showings of Léman in view of Hellier as argued by
the examiner's on pages 4 and 5 of the final rejection. Figures
1 and 5 of Hellier do provide persuasive teachings of the claimed
concave shape as argued by the examiner and the overall
ornamental design of Hellier would have been a persuasive
teaching in our view for the artisan to have modified the front
portion of Léman's battery charger 1 to achieve a more ornamental
design for this battery charger in light Hellier's showings in
Figures 1 and 5. Additionally, it is apparent to us that with
such a combination, it would have been easier for the user of the
phones 2, 7 in Léman to have placed or removed them from the base
1 utilizing the base design of Hellier.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007