Ex Parte Suryanarayana et al - Page 14


               Appeal 2007-0647                                                                             
               Application 10/421,366                                                                       

                      We further note that August expressly teaches a corporate web server                  
               (33) connected to the vendor transaction facility through the Internet                       
               (August, ¶0019).  We have found supra that August expressly teaches a                        
               “telematics control unit” (e.g., a PDA or a wireless telephone, see August,                  
               ¶ 0018).                                                                                     
                      Here, we find the web server taught by August inherently receives a                   
               notification that a telematics control unit (e.g., a PDA or a wireless                       
               telephone) is at least within the wireless coverage area at the time the                     
               connection is established.  We note that a connection must necessarily occur                 
               before the PDA and the data server can communicate.  We find the                             
               establishment of such a connection (i.e., notification) reasonably teaches                   
               and/or suggests the recited step of detection.  Thus, we broadly but                         
               reasonably construe “detection” as a notification.  Therefore, we conclude                   
               the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness that has not                  
               been persuasively rebutted by Appellants by a showing of insufficient                        
               evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case                     
               with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.  Accordingly, we                       
               sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 53 as being                            
               unpatentable over August in view of Visconti.                                                


                      Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 14-18, 21, 23-28, 30-36, 38-41, 43, and 45-52                       
                      Appellants argue that dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 14-18, 21, 23-28,                   
               30-36, 38-41, 43, and 45-52 are allowable by virtue of their dependency                      
               from independent claims 1, 20, and 37 (App. Br. 9, ¶1). Thus, Appellants                     

                                                    14                                                      

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013