Appeal No. 2001-2038
Application No. 09/002,950
directed to appellant’s second embodiment, described at the
bottom of page 4 of the specification, wherein the battery
constitutes “in itself virtually all of the flap and in
particular to define the surface from which sound is reflected
towards the microphone.”
Takagi 998 does disclose a removable battery 42 on the rear
of a telephone flap [see Figures 4, 5 and 6]. However, the flap
of Takagi 998 includes many other elements, including, for
example, logic unit 28, printed wiring board 26, and switch 36.
Accordingly, however “virtually all of said flap” in claim 10 is
interpreted, it is clear that the battery of Takagi 998 does not
constitute “virtually all of said flap.” Moreover, even if,
arguendo, the artisan would have been led to combine Mischenko
and Takagi 998, it appears to us that the best that could be
achieved is to attach a battery on the rear side of Mischenko’s
flap 103. We can find absolutely no suggestion in either of the
applied references to replace Mischenko’s flap 103 with a battery
so as to use the battery, itself, as a sound reflector
It is true, as the examiner argues, that the flap of
Mischenko has no such electronic elements and, so, the placement
of a battery in place of the flap portion of Mischenko, as
suggested by Takagi 998, would result in the invention, as
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007