Appeal No. 2000-2226 Page 8
Application No. 08/827,107
making the clip-like antenna 7 rotatable about a pivotal joint so as to be movable
between extended and retracted positions, would not reduce the size of “[t]he main
housing 3," col. 2, ll. 16-17, of the radio telephone. Because Harrison’s “invention
[already] has the advantage of providing a compact antenna,” co. 1, ll. 52-53, such a
modification would do little to reduce the size of the antenna. Therefore, we reverse the
obviousness rejection of claim 15 and of claims 16-18, which fall therewith.
Our reversal of the examiner’s rejection of claims 15-18 is based only on his
proposal to modify Harrison’s clip-like antenna to be movable as in Takagi for the
aforementioned reason. Nevertheless, we notice Harrison’s disclosure that “[i]n EP-A-
0036442 there is disclosed a personal radio transceiver in which a pivoted antenna is
movable between an extended operating position and a retracted non-operating
position, and, which, in the non-operating position, doubles as a pocket clip.” Col. 1, ll.
27-31. Furthermore, although the examiner fails to show the desirability of modifying
Harrison’s clip-like antenna to be movable like Takagi’s, that does not mean that it
would not have been obvious to apply Takagi’s teaching of a movable antenna as a
primary reference and to modify it with a teaching of using an antenna as a belt clip,
e.g., Harrison’s teaching of an “antenna ha[ving] the additional function of a belt or
pocket clip.” Id. at ll. 57-58.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007