Appeal No. 2003-0494
Application No. 09/176,012
Appellants have not provided any arguments with respect to this rejection of claim 17.
Appellants’ arguments on page 14 of the brief directed to the rejection of claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, focus on the limitation of a “speech computer” not being taught by
Honda. This argument is not applicable to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as the
examiner states, on page 12 of the answer, that “Honda, however, fails to specifically
disclose …a speech computer.” Appellants argue this rejection with respect to claims
18 and 19, on page 17 of the brief, stating that by the reasoning provided with respect to
claim 15, the rejection of claims 18 and 19 is also improper. As stated supra we find
that Honda teach the limitations in independent claim 15. Since appellants have not
argued a limitation added by dependent claims 17 through 19, we sustain the rejection
of claims 17 through 19 for the same reasons applied supra to claim 15.
Group D
We next consider the rejection applied to claim 21, group D. Claim 21 is rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Honda in view of Sormunen. Claim
21 is ultimately dependent upon independent claim 15, and is thereby grouped
separately from the claims dependent upon either claims 1 and 23. Appellants’
arguments concerning this rejection are on pages 15 though 17 of the brief and are
directed to independent claims 1 and 23. Appellants’ argue on page 16 of the brief, that
Honda does not teach a query profile and does not teach the use of a data processing
system separate from a mobile telephone. These arguments are not directed at claim
21 and inasmuch as they apply to claim 21 are the same as already addressed with
-11–
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007