Appeal No. 2001-2260
Application 08/712,502
[brief, pages 5-7 and 9]. With respect to independent claim 25,
appellants argue that neither Chinnock nor Weinberger teaches
using the telephone number of a remote computing device which was
used to call the central processing station in selecting the
appropriate access number [id., page 8].
With respect to claims 1 and 45, the examiner responds
that each of the host computers in Chinnock has the access
numbers of the other host computers. The examiner also notes
that since Chinnock determines the host computer based on
information supplied by the user, Chinnock teaches receiving
location identifying information of the user [answer, pages 8-
10]. With respect to independent claim 25, the examiner repeats
the latter argument [id., page 10].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 25 and 45. A key feature of these claims
is that a network access number is downloaded to the user’s
computer based on the location of the user. Thus, in the claimed
invention, the access number is selected based on the user’s
location. The host computers in Chinnock are selected after the
user has already accessed the network. The particular host
computer selected in Chinnock is based on the type of information
which the user is looking for and is not based on the location of
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007