Ex Parte METTERNICH et al - Page 3




                  Appeal No. 2003-0494                                                                                                                   
                  Application No. 09/176,012                                                                                                             


                           g) presenting the information to a user of the mobile telephone by way of the                                                 
                           mobile telephone.                                                                                                             
                           15.  A method for producing a user-specified information requirement which can                                                
                           be accessed via SMS messages of a mobile telephone, comprising the following                                                  
                           steps:                                                                                                                        
                           a) using a user data processing system to prepare a query profile, having an                                                  
                           associated brief command and at least one information requirement, where the                                                  
                           brief command can be produced using the keypad of a mobile telephone;                                                         
                           b) sending the query profile in accordance with step a) using the user data-                                                  
                           processing system to an information supplier; and                                                                             
                           c) storing the query profile at the information provider on an information supplier                                           
                           data-processing system which can communicate with a telephone network of the                                                  
                           mobile telephone.                                                                                                             

                                                                    References                                                                           
                  Sormunen et al. (Sormunen)                6,112,078                                  Aug. 29, 2000                                     
                                             (filed Feb. 20, 1997)                                                                                       
                  Honda                                                   5,875,405                    Feb. 23, 1999                                     
                                             (filed Dec. 26, 1995)                                                                                       
                                                              Rejections at Issue                                                                        
                           Claims 15, 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being                                                            
                  unpatentable over Honda1.                                                                                                              
                           Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 through 12, 14, 21, 23 through 27 and 29  stand rejected                                                 
                  under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Honda in view of Sormunen.                                                            

                  1 We note that in the final rejection, claim 17 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102.  However, claim 17 is                              
                  not included in the statement of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on page 4 of the examiner’s answer.                              
                  As the examiner also rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we assume that the examiner withdrew the                                 
                  rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, see Ex Parte Emm 118 USPQ 180, 181 (BdPatApp&Int,                                         
                  1958).                                                                                                                                 
                                                                         -3–                                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007