Appeal No. 2003-0494
Application No. 09/176,012
respect to claim 15. As stated supra we find that Honda teaches the query profile and
data processing system limitations of claim 15. Since applicant has not argued a
limitation added by dependent claim 21, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 for the
same reasons applied supra to claim 15.
Group E
We next consider the rejection applied to claim 22, group E. Claim 22 is rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Honda in view of Sormunen and well
known prior art. Appellants argue on page 17 of the brief that by the reasoning
discussed in reference to independent claim 15, the rejection of claim 22 is improper.
As stated supra we find that Honda does teach the limitations in independent claim 15.
Since applicant has not argued a limitation added by dependent claim 22, we sustain
the rejection of clam 22 for the same reasons applied supra to claim 15.
Groups F and G
We next consider the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 through 12, 14, 23 through
27 and 29 (groups F and G) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Honda
in view of Sormunen. Appellants argue on page 16 of the brief that the combination of
the references does not teach “producing and sending a query profile that is to be used
to retrieve independently- existing information as opposed to producing and sending the
information itself.”
We agree. Whereas we do not find this argument convincing with respect to
claim 15 because we do not consider the scope of claim 15 to include such a limitation.
-12–
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007