Appeal No. 1999-0091
Application No. 08/762,052
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant indicates on
pages 3-4 of the Brief that the claims do not stand or fall
together. Appellant proposes four groups of claims: I) claims 1
through 5, 8 through 12, 21, and 22, II) claims 16 through 18,
III) claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20, and IV) claim 15, and
argues each group separately in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(c)(7). However, claims 21 and 22 include subject matter
argued for the second group of claims. Therefore, we will treat
the claims substantially according to appellant's grouping, with
claims 21 and 22 included in group II, and with claims 1, 16, 6,
and 15 as representative of the four groups.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 14, 19,
and 20 and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 15 through
18, 21, and 22.
Regarding the first group of claims, appellant asserts
(Brief, page 5) that Ross "provides no teaching whereby specific
schedule status information is provided to the rider via a
telephone call without the rider actually answering the telephone
call and listening to a voice message , as is clearly set out in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007