Appeal No. 2000-1722
Application No. 08/802,578
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, and we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 5 and 14 nor their dependents, claims 6
through 8, 13, and 15 through 18 over Wang.
As to the rejection the claims of group 1 over Champion, we
find appellants' arguments to be unpersuasive. For example,
appellants argue (Brief, pages 7 and 8) that Champion is limited
to a traffic information system, with no suggestion of compiling
musical event information. Champion, however, discloses (column
1, lines 32-36, column 3, lines 61-66, column 6, lines 33-41,
column 7, lines 27-34, and column 9, lines 59-62) that the
information system described is applicable to any type of
information which may be of interest to the subscriber. Champion
specifies long range travel routings, updated news, commodity and
stock reports, and airline, train and bus scheduling as possible
types of information, but also suggests that any type of
information of interest to the subscriber would apply.
Therefore, Champion is not limited to traffic information.
Furthermore, as any information of interest to the subscriber
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007