Appeal No. 2000-2254
Application No. 08/746,746
With respect to claim 1, appellant argues that
Schellinger discloses only a single cellular transceiver while
Gillig does not disclose a monitoring means for selecting and re-
selecting different ones of the transceivers. Thus appellant
argues that neither Schellinger nor Gillig teaches a telephone
having the claimed monitoring means and the selection means.
Appellant also argues that Schellinger teaches away from using
two different transceivers as claimed [brief, pages 4-7].
The examiner responds that it would have been obvious to
the artisan to replace the single transceiver of Schellinger with
two separate transceivers as taught by Gillig. The examiner also
responds that the claimed automatic selecting and re-selecting is
met by the collective teachings of Schellinger and Gillig
[answer, pages 12-14]. Appellant responds that Schellinger
discloses only a single communication means so that there can be
no selection between communication means and Gillig does not
teach re-selecting between communication means [reply brief,
pages 1-2].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Schellinger teaches the desirability of operating a
radiotelephone in both a cordless telephone system and a cellular
telephone system. Schellinger’s radio telephone, however,
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007