Appeal No. 2001-0815
Application 08/803,947
the predetermined function for a period
during which user generation of a predefined
cancellation signal cancels performance of
the predetermined function. . . .
Similarly, we note that the only other independent claim 12 also
recites
a processor operable to perform a predeter-
mined function of placing the handset in the
off-hook condition in response to an incoming
call and movement of the extending portion
toward the second position, wherein the
processor is operable to delay performance of
the predetermined function for a period
during which generation of a predefined
cancellation signal cancels performance of
the predetermined function. . . .
As we have pointed out above, Furuno fails to teach
this limitation. Furthermore, we fail to find that Furuno
suggests such a limitation because Furuno is only concerned in
allowing the user time to place the earphone in his ear which
is the sole purpose of the delay. Furthermore, upon reading
Martensson, we fail to find that that reference suggests or
teaches such a limitation. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
rejection of claims 13, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 nor have
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007