Appeal No. 2002-1986
Application No. 09/283,167
While the relocated subscriber in Kallioniemi may be capable of
being modified to use the GPS location of the subscriber in LaDue
(although the list of call routing parameters is still missing),
there must be a suggestion or motivation in the references to do
so. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (“The mere fact that the prior art could be so
modified would not have made the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.”). We
see no such suggestion. The location of the servers in
Kallioniemi are known and do not require to be identified by
their GPS location while the “location parameter” of LaDue also
relates only to the server system serving the current user and is
not required to be determined from the present location of the
wireless telephone.
Thus, not only there is no reason or suggestion for
combining various teachings from these references, as set forth
by the Examiner, we also find that the combination would not have
taught all the recited features of the claimed invention.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007