Appeal No. 2002-1986
Application No. 09/283,167
We also are mindful of the Examiner’s struggle to relate the
claimed “call routing parameters” to the teachings of LaDue
(answer, page 4) and later to Kallioniemi (answer, pages 9 & 10).
The Examiner further changes the gist of the rejection by stating
that Kallioniemi does not identify the “present location” and by
relying on LaDue for specifying the use of GPS location of the
subscriber (answer, the sentence connecting pages 11 and 12).
In order to justify the combination of Kallioniemi and LaDue, the
Examiner additionally relies on the fact that both references are
in the same field of endeavor (answer, page 10) and relate to
wireless communications and determining the location of the user
(answer, page 12).
As discussed above, Kallioniemi is concerned with the
location of the server whereas LaDue uses the GPS location of a
subscriber to route message packets from one cellular system to
the one serving the user. Therefore, neither reference teach or
suggest the claimed feature of “generating a list that contains a
plurality of call routing parameters, each of which is determined
from said present location of said wireless telephone set.”
Furthermore, we cannot agree with the Examiner that being in
the same field of endeavor and the fact that the references could
have been combined is sufficient to support the combination.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007