Appeal No. 2000-2254
Application No. 08/746,746
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-6, 9, 11 and
47 based on the teachings of Schellinger and Gillig. The
examiner has indicated how he finds the invention of these claims
to be obvious over the collective teachings of Schellinger and
Gillig [answer, pages 4-6]. The examiner cites Schellinger as
teaching a radio telephone which can communicate with either a
cordless base station or a cellular base station. The examiner
essentially finds that Schellinger teaches the claimed invention
except that Schellinger uses a single cellular transceiver for
communicating with both the cordless and cellular base stations
rather than two separate transceivers as claimed. The examiner
cites Gillig as teaching the use of separate transceivers in a
radio telephone for communicating with a cordless base station
and a cellular base station and automatically selecting between
the two. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to
the artisan to use a separate cordless transceiver in Schellinger
as taught by Gillig.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007