Appeal No. 2002-1328
Application 08/970,883
modify the system of Kim and Lewo with this feature from Nakajima
for added convenience [answer, pages 4-5].
Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Kim, Lewo
and Nakajima fail to teach or suggest a single button that
activates the base speaker as well as the speaker and microphone
of the handset. Appellant notes that different keys are used to
activate the same functions in the applied prior art. Appellant
argues that the motivation of convenience as asserted by the
examiner does not support the rejection because the prior art
does not disclose the emergency key as claimed [brief, pages 7-
10].
The examiner responds that each of the three references
teach telephone functions that are activated by a single key
press. The examiner repeats his assertion that the claimed
invention would have been obvious in view of the combined
teachings of the applied prior art [answer, pages 5-7].
Appellant responds that the applied prior art fails to
teach that a single emergency key dials a pre-stored number,
activates the microphone and speaker of the personal device and
activates the speaker of the base device [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 7
and 9. The claimed invention recites a system and method in
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007