Appeal No. 2002-1986
Application No. 09/283,167
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
This evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie
case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-
88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ
268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to the claimed feature of generating a list
that contains a plurality of call routing parameters based on the
present location of the wireless telephone, we agree with
Appellants that neither reference discloses or suggests such
feature. LaDue, in portions relied on by the Examiner, is merely
concerned with the location parameter of the server that serves
the user (col. 8, lines 23 and 24) or with routing parameters
used for sending a message packet to the appropriate link (col.
11, lines 18-21 and 29-33). In sending the packets, although
LaDue relies on GPS information related to the subscriber’s
location, the Examiner has pointed to no teaching or suggestion
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007