Appeal No. 2005-0170
Application No. 09/755,650
information/messages which are deemed to be advertising. (Answer at pages 4-6 and
12-13.)
Appellant argues that the combination of Rudow and Lawlor does not teach or
suggest the above limitations. (Brief at pages 6-8.) The examiner seems to miss the
point of appellant’s discussion of the teachings of Rudow with respect to activation of
communication based upon location and not that the access point generates a wireless
signal to cause the mobile unit to generate a response. From our review of the
teachings of Rudow, we find that while Rudow does teach that polling had been used in
the prior art, Rudow teaches the use of TDM rather than polling since polling is very
bandwidth inefficient. Therefore, we find that while polling was known, the examiner
has merely combined this additional teaching as part of the system of Rudow which it is
clearly not. Additionally, the examiner expands upon the brief statement of the prior art
known polling by a base station, but the examiner does not address this teaching in
combination with the claim as a whole which requires “a plurality of distributed wireless
access points coupled to said network, wherein each of said plurality of wireless access
points is configured to generate a wireless signal to cause a mobile unit in proximity to
the wireless access point to generate a response.” Rudow merely teaches that a
singular base station performs the polling to determine location rather than when the
mobile unit comes in proximity to the access point. Therefore, we do not find that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention as
claimed. We find that the examiner has picked and chosen various teachings in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007