Appeal No. 2005-0045 Page 5
Application No. 09/801,093
information about a predetermined first location. We do not agree with the examiner
that the location of the customer that is first determined is a predetermined location. The
examiner also states that Hall does disclose a first predetermined location as the
location of the customer must be within a range of the system. However, even if we
consider the initial location of the customer to be the first predetermined location, there
is still no disclosure of “transmitting a second signal to a second party when the first
location is equal to a first predetermined location”, as is recited in claim 7. This
language of claim 7 requires the transmission of a second signal based on the first party
reaching a first predetermined location. This Hall simply does not disclose. In our view,
the first location and indeed the subsequent locations of the customer are not
predetermined.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 7. We will
likewise not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 8 to 10 and 12 and 14 as
these claims depend from claim 7.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Hendrey.
Recognizing that Hall does not disclose receiving second signal that is indicative
of a location of the second party, the examiner relies on Hendrey for teaching receiving
a second signal indicative of a location of the second party wherein the second signal is
received at the central scheduling computer. The examiner concludes:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007