Appeal No. 2000-2237
Application 08/723,712
for both modes of operation. Appellants also argue that
Nagashima teaches a single mode (only a cordless mode) handset
which has a single transceiver and uses a single control channel
protocol. Accordingly, appellants contend that each of the
applied references teaches the use of one transceiver for each
protocol used and this cannot meet or suggest the claimed
requirement of a “single transceiver...operating in accordance
with first and second wireless control protocols.”
While appellants also mention a U.S. Patent No. 4,989,230 to
Gillig, and the examiner responds to this in the answer, where a
reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in
a minor capacity, there would appear to be no excuse for not
positively including the reference in the statement of the
rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406,
407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Gillig forms no part of the examiner’s
statement of the rejections and, accordingly, we have not
considered this reference.
We agree with appellants. The instant claims clearly
require “a single transceiver...operating in accordance with
first and second wireless control protocols.” However, neither
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007