Appeal No. 2001-1863
Application No. 08/603,665
of providing a removable interface/mounting bracket which allows
phone manufactured by different companies . . . to be removably
connected to a computer . . . .” Appellant argues (brief at page
15, and reply brief at page 4) that the Examiner has used improper
hindsight and that there is no suggestion or motivation in the
references to make the combination.
However, we agree with the Examiner that Morris discloses
(Figs. 1 and 7) that an adaptor such as 10 enables the use of
cellular portable telephones manufactured by different telephone
companies for removably connecting these phones to an external
apparatus such as a computer. See column 4, lines 13-27.
Appellant further argues (brief at pages 13 and 14, and reply
brief at page 4) that even if the combination of Mizoguchi and
Morris were proper, the combination will still not meet the
limitation, “an interface module removably connected to said
portable telephone and contacting one and only one surface of said
portable telephone” (id. at page 13). Appellant at page 13 of the
brief explains how, in Fig. 7 of Morris, which is used by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007