Appeal No. 2004-1822
Application No. 09/550,863
have individual communication links as well. The examiner
focuses mainly on Snapp’s conceptual teachings of simultaneous
testing/connection, multiple cellular phones and a connection
between both phones. See pages 7-9 of the office action of Paper
No. 10. Also, on page 6 of the answer, the examiner states that
Snapp discloses a remote cellular test set that can connect to
multiple cellular phones that are coupled together via loop
access, and refers to figure 2, item 230 of Snapp. The examiner
then states that it would have been obvious to have utilized two
wireless telephones as means to test wall-to-wall phones at once
which increases efficiency of the tester. Answer, page 7. We
agree. We believe that testing of one phone or multiple phones
would have been obvious as explained by the examiner.
Appellants argue this rejection on pages 32-35 of the brief
and pages 12-13 o the reply brief. Appellants emphasize the
import of a wireless phone. Fujiwara uses a radio phone which is
a wireless phone. Hence, we are not convinced by such argument.
Claim 13 is directed to attenuation, and as discussed supra,
Fujiwara teaches attenuation.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 12
and 13.
V. Conclusion
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, second paragraph.
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, but we affirm the
rejection of claims 8-10, under 35 U.S.C. §103, as being
unpatentable over DeJaco in view of Fujiwara, and Hardy, Larkin
and Hendershot.
We reverse the rejection of claim 4, but we affirm the
rejection of claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable
over DeJaco and Fujiwara and further in view of Sears.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007