Appeal No. 2005-1705
Application 09/455,956
independent claims 1 and 12, we also do not sustain the rejection
with respect to dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11, 13-23, 32, 37, 38,
41 and 42.
With respect to independent claim 24, appellant argues
that since the input devices of Lobb and Moriarty are designed as
part of the system, there is no teaching or suggestion for
indicating display characteristics of the mobile terminal to the
sport server as claimed. Appellant also argues that Eiba fails
to teach or suggest that a mobile terminal indicates display
parameters to the sports server. Finally, appellant repeats the
motivation to combine argument discussed above [brief,
pages 11-12].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 24 for essentially the reasons discussed above
with respect to claims 1 and 12. Since we have not sustained the
rejection of independent claim 24, we also do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 25-31.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007