Appeal No. 2001-2260
Application 08/712,502
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of the claims based on
Chinnock and Weinberger. The examiner explains how he finds the
claimed invention to be obvious over the applied references
[answer, pages 3-6]. With respect to independent claims 1 and
45, appellants argue that Chinnock does not teach a system for
receiving location identifying information and using this
information to search a database to select and download a
computer network access number to a remote computing device.
Appellants also argue that Weinberger teaches a least cost
routing device but the information is based on the dialed
telephone number and not on the location of the remote device.
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to modify the
Chinnock system with the least cost routing feature of Weinberger
because the user in Chinnock has already accessed the network
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007