Appeal No. 2005-1705
Application 09/455,956
used fails to disclose that a filter is required at a central
server for filtering data sent out to various different devices.
Appellant also reiterates his position that there is no
motivation for combining the applied references [reply brief,
pages 1-4].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 12 for essentially the reasons argued by
appellant in the briefs. Most importantly, we agree with
appellant that the input terminals in Lobb and Moriarty are
specifically designed to be used with the central computer and
are basically all the same. Therefore, there is no need to
determine the type of mobile terminal used and selecting prompt
displays based on that determination. We also agree with
appellant that there is no basis for combining the teachings of
Eiba with the teachings of Lobb and Moriarty. Lobb and Moriarty
relate to the management of data on a golf course. Eiba relates
to a device for displaying winning lottery numbers. We see no
reason why the artisan would have been motivated to apply the
teachings of the lottery device of Eiba to the golf course
devices of Lobb and Moriarty except in an improper attempt to
reconstruct the claimed invention in hindsight. Since we have
not sustained the examiner’s rejection with respect to
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007