Appeal No. 2001-1863
Application No. 08/603,665
one and only one surface of said portable telephone. In fact,
element 10 in Fig. 1 is fixed.
Furthermore, only bracket 58 (Fig. 9) appears to meet the
recited limitation of removably connected to the portable
telephone, however, as pointed out by Appellant at page 13 of the
brief, it does not meet the recited limitation of contacting one
and only one surface of said portable telephone. The Examiner’s
switch to Fig. 1 of Morris satisfies the requirement of contacting
only one and one surface of said portable telephone, however, does
not meet the recited limitation of removably connected to the
telephone.
Thus, applying the precepts annunciated in Lee, we do not
find that the Examiner has made adequate findings to support the
rejection.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of any of the
claims on appeal since Mizoguchi and Morris are relied upon by the
Examiner to meet the limitations recited in claim 1 and other
independent claims, 13, 19 and 21. The other references, namely
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007