Appeal No. 2003-0494
Application No. 09/176,012
Claim 1 contains the additional limitations of “putting together the information of the
information requirements contained in the associated query profile” and “sending the
information to the mobile telephone.” Independent claim 23 contains similar limitations
in steps c) and d). Honda teaches that the ID number can be sent from base station to
phone and vice versa (see Honda Column 4, lines 10-33). However, Honda does not
teach that the ID number (phone number) is used to put together information and that
the information is sent to the mobile telephone. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
rejection claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 through 12, 14, 23 through 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Groups H and I
Finally, we consider the rejection of claims 3 through 5, 8, 13, and 28
(Groups H and I) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Honda in view of
Sormunen and well known prior art. Claims 3 through 5, 8, 13, and 28 ultimately
depend upon either independent claims 1 or 23. The examiner has not provided any
evidence that the addition of well known prior art teaches the limitations of “putting
together the information of the information requirements contained in the associated
query profile” and “sending the information to the mobile telephone.” Accordingly, for
the reasons addressed supra with respect to claims 1 and 23 we reverse the examiner’s
rejection of claims 3 through 5, 8, 13, and 28 (Groups H and I) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
-13–
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007