Appeal No. 2002-1328
Application 08/970,883
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be obvious over the teachings of the applied prior
art. Specifically, the examiner finds that Kim teaches the
claimed invention except that Kim does not teach activating the
speaker and microphone of the handset in response to a single
key. The examiner cites Lewo as teaching this feature and
asserts that it would have been obvious to the artisan to add
this feature to the telephone system of Kim. The examiner
acknowledges that the combination of Kim and Lewo still does not
teach an emergency key that also activates a base station
speaker. The examiner cites Nakajima as teaching this feature
and asserts that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007