Appeal No. 2006-3323
Application No. 10/287,151
III. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 4 and
7 as being unpatentable over Schmier in combination with Ran and
Ryu, Respectively, Proper?
With respect to claims 4 and 6, Appellant argues in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs that Schmier does not teach claimed
invention. Particularly, Appellant asserts that Schmier does not
teach estimating and sending the time-of-arrival bounds for a
confidence interval for a user in transit from a source location
to a destination location. We have already addressed this
argument in the discussion of claim 1 above, and we agree with
Appellant. Further, Appellant argues that neither Ran nor Ryu
cures the deficiencies of Schmier. We also agree with Appellant.
It is therefore our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill
in the particular art would not have suggested to the ordinarily
skilled artisan the invention as set forth in claims 4 and 7.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 4 and 7.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007