Appeal No. 2004-1309
Application No. 09/410,978
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1 through 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Bull in view of DeLorme. Throughout the opinion we make
reference to the briefs1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in
the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellants and examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue, on page 12 of the brief, that while Bull does teach a
user profile, it does not teach a user profile as is claimed. Further, on page 14 of
the brief, appellants argue
While DeLorme, et al. do suggest a trip literary, the trip itinerary is not a
function of at least one profile of the user causing a choice of order in
which the user physically visits the identified vendors either along a trip or
1 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on May 30, 2003 and appellants filed a Reply Brief on
November 5, 2003.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007