Appeal No. 2005-2657 Page 5
Application No. 09/898,497
the location of the mobile unit (MU). It is further asserted
(id.) that :
[b]ecause Owensby teaches offering a subsidy in
exchange for accepting advertisements, and [is] not
responsive to a user's location, Owensby clearly does
not describe each and every element as set forth in the
claimed invention, either expressly or inherently as is
required to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
The examiner responds (answer, page 3) that in Owensby, a
cell phone user is offered a subsidized cell phone rate in
response to the geographic location of the user. With respect to
appellants' assertion (brief, page 4) that “the claimed invention
changes the billing rate for the user subject only to the
location of the MU,” the examiner points out (answer, page 4)
that the scope of the claims does not include the term “only”' or
any other similar modifying term. The examiner notes that in an
amendment after final, appellants attempted to add the term
“solely,” but that this amendment to the claims was not entered
by the examiner. The examiner adds (answer, page 5) that
“[s]ince Appellant failed to limit the claims to a user receiving
a cell phone subsidy for “only” or “solely” being located in
predetermined geographic [location], Owensby clearly anticipates
the claims.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007