Appeal No. 2002-1986
Application No. 09/283,167
routing parameters with a routing table for identifying the
location of a wireless telephone user (answer, page 4). The
examiner then concludes that the combination would have been
obvious since locating roaming subscribers based on the routing
table with routing call parameters is desired (id.).
Appellants, although acknowledging that Kallioniemi relates
to both wireline and wireless networks (reply brief, page 2),
argue that the relied on section in Kallioniemi relates to
network routing prefix (NRP) and simply identifies the local
exchange that has been determined to serve the subscriber’s
telephone (reply brief, page 3). In particular, Appellants
assert that identifying the local exchange serving a subscriber
in Kallioniemi is different from the claimed use of the
subscriber’s location to generate a list of location parameters
(reply brief, page 3). Appellants further argue that LaDue
merely uses GPS data to locate a subscriber telephone, but fails
to teach or suggest the use of a number of subscriber location
parameters which define different aspects of the physical
location of the subscriber’s telephone (reply brief, page 4).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007