Appeal No. 2003-0483
Application No. 09/375,429
While we do not say that a case could not be made for the obviousness of
anonymizing the device identification information and the location address, we merely
conclude that the examiner has not done so in this case.
Since we have sustained the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13 and 16-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 but we have not sustained the rejection of claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007