Appeal No. 2005-2657 Page 20
Application No. 09/898,497
In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
From our review of Owensby, we find that the reference is
analogous because the reference deals with giving subsidies to
cell phone users, based on the geographic location of the cell
phone (MU), if the user or subscriber is willing to listen to ads
before or before and during cell phone calls. Although Jones is
not in the same field of endeavor, we find that the reference
meets the second prong of the test because the reference relates
to determining the physical location of a subject or object with
respect to a device such as a mobile phone. We agree with the
examiner (answer, page 5) that Jones’ teaching of various types
of geographic location systems is analogous to Owensby’s device
which utilizes a geographic location system. We are not
persuaded by appellants’ assertion (brief, page 5) that Jones
does not cure the defects of Owensby, because as we found, supra,
Owensby meets the limitations of claim 1, from which claim 3
depends. From all of the above, we are not convinced of any
error on the part of the examiner in rejecting claims 3, 5, 14,
16, 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Owensby in view of Jones. The rejection of claims 3, 5, 14, 16,
25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007