Appeal No. 2005-2505
Application 09/740,277
As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments fail to establish
any error in the Examiner’s prima facie case. Appellants have
done nothing more than use known techniques for their intended
purpose to achieve an entirely expected result. Therefore, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 47-49 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 47-49. Accordingly,
we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 47, Appellants argue at page
9 of the brief, that French does not disclose either alternative
feature of claim 47 at lines 27-30 of column 6 (the section of
French cited by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 47). We
do not agree.
Claim 47 requires “notification of an external event.”
French specifically describe “a user may pick up the mobile
phone, thus activating the unit” at lines 24-26 of column 6 of
French. The Examiner specifically cited these lines of French
with respect to the rejection of claim 1 from which claim 47
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007