Appeal No. 2003-0494
Application No. 09/176,012
The examiner, on page 2 of the answer, refers to column 4, lines 12-20 of Honda
as teaching the query profile. This section of Honda teaches that the abbreviated
dialing registration (ADR) data consists of an abbreviated number and an ID number,
phone number (see also Honda Column 4, lines 21 to 30). We find that the ADR data
meets the claimed query profile and that the abbreviated number and ID number meets
the claimed brief command and information requirement. The plain meaning of the term
“requirement” is “a thing demanded.” Honda teaches that the ID number is what is
provided in response to the user pushing a button for the abbreviated number, thus we
consider the ID number as the information requirement (the “thing demanded”).
Appellants’ second argument directed to the claims in group A, rejected
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over Honda, is presented on pages 12 though
14 of the brief. Appellants argue on page 12 of the brief that:
[C]laim 15 requires a “user data processing system” be used to prepare the
query profile(s) and to send them to the information supplier. This “user data
processing system” is separate and distinct from the user’s mobile phone. This
is made clear by the fact that steps a) and b) of claim 15 are specified as being
performed by the “user data processing system” while step c) is specified as
being performed by a mobile telephone.
We do not find this argument convincing. We do not find that step c), of claim 15, is
specified as being performed by a mobile telephone. Step c) is a step of “storing the
query profile at the information provider on an information supplier data processing
system.” Step c) further states that the system “can communicate with a telephone
network of the mobile telephone.” We find that the scope of this limitation does not
include using a telephone to perform the method step, but rather that the method step is
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007