Appeal No. 2001-2038
Application No. 09/002,950
claimed.
The question, however, is what would have led the artisan to
take only Takagi 998's teaching of placing a battery on the flap
portion of a portable telephone and employ such a teaching to
place Mischenko’s battery as a substitute for the flap portion?
Certainly, nothing in Mischenko suggest moving the battery from
the body of the telephone to the flap portion and there is no
indication that Mischenko needs any improvement in this regard.
Takagi 998 places the battery in the flap section but there is no
indication that it is placed there in order to constitute
“virtually all of said flap so that said battery, itself, forms
said reflector.” Takagi 998 has other elements on the flap,
ostensibly powered by the battery which is also on the flap.
Merely because Takagi 998 places a removable battery pack 42 on
the rear of the flap portion of his telephone would not, in our
view, suggest placing a battery as a substitute for the flap
portion of Mischenko, without some reason to do so. The examiner
says it is for the “purpose of providing a flat, small, folding
portable radio telephone set meeting ergonomic requirements in
order to compactly fold up the radio telephone set” [answer-page
5]. But, Mischenko already provides for such a flat, small,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007