Appeal No. 2005-0045 Page 2
Application No. 09/801,093
The appellants’ invention relates to a method that includes the step of receiving
information regarding the location of a first party and a second party. The location
information is used to create a schedule to automatically coordinate the activity at the
destination of the first and second parties (specification, p. 5). A copy of the claims
under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The references
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Hall 6,026,375 Feb. 15, 2000
Hendrey US 2002/0107008 Aug. 8, 2002
The rejections
Claims 7 to 10, 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Hall.
Claims 1 to 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hall in view of Hendrey.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007