Appeal No. 2002-1980
Application 09/264,769
claims 1, 13, 22, 30 and 37 in some manner recite that the
receiver earphone forms a stand-alone unit that is "not connected
to the microphone [or transmitter]." This negative limitation
feature is in each of the claims 1-39. Rydbeck's Figure 1, for
example, shows a prior art approach where the earphone and
microphone are connected together and both are connected by a
wire connection to the radio telephone shown. According to the
more system-oriented diagrams in Rydbeck's Figures 2, 3, and 6,
there is no embodiment where the receiver earphone/speaker 140
is not connected to the microphone 150. Additionally, in all
embodiments in Rydbeck, the receiver earphone/speaker 140 and
the microphone are connected together in a common stand-alone
unit. The same may be said of the various transceivers in
Figures 4a and 4b. Therefore, even considering the teaching
value of Rydbeck alone within 35 U.S.C. § 103, the subject matter
of claims 1-39 would not have been obvious to the artisan within
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In contrast, we do sustain the rejection of independent
method claim 40. This claim does not recite the above-noted
negative limitation at the end of this claim as does each of
the other independent claims on appeal. When the headset 110
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007