Appeal No. 2002-0819
Application No. 09/047,533
fulfilled, as disclosed in Hall, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the teachings of Morrill and Hall whereas using the
predetermined geographical proximity as a security safeguard must
result from the combination (answer, pages 4 & 5).
Appellant argues that considering the customer’s location in
Hall is merely for scheduling the completion of the order at the
same time the customer arrives at a local facility (brief, page
6). Appellant further points out that the use of the customer’s
location is for efficiency purposes and for insuring that the
order is locally available (brief, page 7). Additionally,
Appellant indicates that the claimed “predetermined geographical
proximity” is necessary to authorize or complete payment, whereas
Hall never uses proximity as criteria or authorization for
payment and merely considers the GPS coordinates for timing of
providing the requested service (id.).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the timing of the customer’s arrival is related to the
distance between the customer and the merchant (answer, page 13).
The Examiner further reasons that since the reference discusses
“acceptable estimated times of arrival in order to fulfill the
order,” a predetermined geographical proximity must be involved
as “distance is an integral component” (id.). The Examiner also
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007