Appeal No. 2002-1986
Application No. 09/283,167
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kallioniemi in view of LaDue.2
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 11, mailed March
26, 2002) for the Examiner’s reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 10, filed February 20,
2002) and the reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed May 24, 2002) for
Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner relies on Kallioniemi
for teaching the routing of calls through a telecommunications
system between a subscriber and a resource as the claimed system
for extending a telephone call from a wireless telephone to a
location-based service (answer, page 3). The Examiner recognizes
that Kallioniemi does not clearly teach the step of providing a
list comprising a plurality of location parameters to enable the
system to identify the present location of a roaming subscriber
(id.). However, referring to Figures 1B and 3 and column 7, line
64 to col. 8, line 38 and col. 11, lines 18-57, the Examiner
asserts that LaDue discloses the technique of providing call
2 Method claims 16-21 are, directly or indirectly, dependent on system
claim 14. Although not an issue before us, we note that the system claim 14
cannot be further limited by a step of, for example, “identifying” or
“determining.” Therefore, the dependency of these claims should be corrected
(should probably be dependent upon method claim 15) such that the conflict in
their language is removed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007