Appeal No. 2001-2038
Application No. 09/002,950
Mischenko for teaching the claimed subject matter but for a
removable battery constituting virtually all of the flap so that
the battery, itself, forms the reflector for reflecting a user’s
voice from the flap to a microphone in the body. The examiner
turns to Takagi 998 for a teaching of a removable battery 42
which constitutes a flap. The examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to incorporate the use of a removable battery
in a flap, as taught by Takagi 998, in Mischenko. The examiner’s
rationale is bottomed on the obviousness of shifting locations of
prior art parts.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. 103.
We agree with the examiner that Mischenko discloses a
portable mobile telephone having a body 101/102 and a flap 103
hinged to the body, as claimed. Mischenko also, obviously, uses
a battery, probably a “removable” one, albeit not disclosed as
constituting “virtually all of said flap.” While not disclosed
as such, flap 103 clearly acts as a sound reflector as well as
does appellant’s battery since the flap and body are similarly
angled and the microphone 107 of Mischenko, like appellant’s, is
placed in the body. However, claim 10 specifically requires that
the “battery, itself, forms the reflector.” Claim 10 is clearly
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007