Ex Parte Mark et al - Page 2

                 Appeal 2006-2961                                                                                         
                 Application 09/745,390                                                                                   
                                                                                                                         
                                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                          
                         Appellants invented a wireless mobile station with a self-powered,                               
                 detachable keypad module that is wirelessly coupled to the mobile station.                               
                 In a preferred embodiment, the keypad module is powered by a solar cell.                                 
                 Such a capability enables the user to remotely place telephone calls.1  Claim                            
                 1 is illustrative:                                                                                       
                         1. A mobile station, comprising:                                                                 
                         a communication part that comprises a controller, an RF transceiver                              
                 and an antenna; and                                                                                      
                         a self powered information entry part comprising a keypad or                                     
                 keyboard module that is detachable from said communication part and that is                              
                 coupled, whether attached or detached, through a wireless link to said                                   
                 communication part for conveying keystroke information from said                                         
                 information entry part to said communication part.                                                       
                         The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show                                
                 unpatentability:                                                                                         
                 Little                        US 4,740,431                 Apr. 26, 1988                                 
                 Halperin                      US 6,115,616                 Sep. 5, 2000                                  
                 Park                          US 6,687,518 B1              Feb. 3, 2004                                  
                                                                            (filed Feb. 14, 2000)                         

                     1. Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                                
                         unpatentable over Park and Halperin.                                                             
                     2. Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35                               
                         U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Park, Halperin, and Little.                                 


                                                                                                                         
                 1 See generally Specification 2:7-20.                                                                    

                                                            2                                                             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013