Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1739-40).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude the Examiner
has articulated an adequate reasoning with a rational underpinning that
reasonably supports the proffered combinability of Bork and Hendrey.
Elements under section 103
Claims 1-5
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Bork in view of Hendrey. Since
Appellant’s arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these
claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
Appellant argues that the combination of Bork and Hendrey does not
teach or suggest the recited limitations of:
listing each identifier on a display, wherein the list is
sorted in order of at least one of distance and direction from the
handheld computer;
(Claim 1; see also App. Br. 7).
Referring to the portions of Hendrey cited by the Examiner, Appellant
contends that Hendrey, at column 9, line 54 through column 10, line 21,
teaches a user initiates a matchmaking request, and a separate matchmaker
107 creates a list of best matches using information that is not provided to
the user for display (App. Br. 8). Thus, Appellant contends that Hendrey’s
matchmaking system simply initiates a connection after identifying a callee
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013