Ex Parte MULLER - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-2038                                                         
          Application No. 09/002,950                                                   


               Representative independent claim 10 is reproduced as                    
          follows:                                                                     
               10.  A portable mobile telephone, comprising:                           
               a body, a removable battery, and a flap hinged to said body             
          to move between an operative position in which the flap is                   
          located in front of the mouth of a user, and a second position               
          folded on top of said body, wherein said flap forms a sound                  
          reflector which, in said operative position, redirects the sound             
          of the user’s voice from said flap to a microphone in said body              
          inboard of said flap, and wherein said removable battery                     
          constitutes virtually all of said flap so that said battery                  
          itself, forms said reflector.                                                
               The examiner relies on the following references:                        
          Mischenko      5,117,073                        May 26, 1992                 
          Takagi et al. [Takagi 329]      5,251,329       Oct. 5, 1993                 
          Takagi [Takagi 998]             5,260,998       Nov. 9, 1993                 

               Claims 10, 12, 13 and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.              
          103.  As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Mischenko              
          and Takagi 998 with regard to claims 10 and 12, adding Takagi 329            
          with regard to claims 13 and 15-20.                                          
               Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the                      
          respective positions of appellant and the examiner.                          


                                       OPINION                                         


               With regard to claims 10 and 12, the examiner cites                     

                                         -2-                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007