Appeal No. 2003-0494
Application No. 09/176,012
command that is transmitted to the base station (see column 4, lines 2-9). Thus, Honda
teaches limitation c) of claim 15 that the base station can communicate with a mobile
phone. In another mode, MT1 can operate as a data entry device in which the user
inputs abbreviated commands and corresponding ID numbers to be transferred and
stored in the base station (see Column 4, lines 11 to 29). Thus, Honda teaches
limitation a) of claim 15 that data processor system is used to prepare a query profile.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
102 as being unpatentable over Honda.
Group B
We next consider the rejection of claim 16, Group B, under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being unpatentable over Honda. Appellants state on page 14 of the brief that claim 16
adds the limitation of information being transmitted by a link. Appellants further state
that though Honda teaches sending data over a data link, the data is not a query profile
and is not sent by a separate data processing system. As stated supra we find that
Honda teaches the query profile and data processing system limitations of claim 15.
Since appellants have not argued a limitation added by dependent claim 16, we sustain
the rejection of clam 16 for the same reasons applied supra to claim 15.
Group C
We next consider the rejection of claims 17 through 19, Group C, under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Honda in view of well known prior art.
-10–
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007