Appeal No. 2005-2657 Page 15
Application No. 09/898,497
We are not persuaded by appellants’ assertion (brief, page
4) that “the claimed invention changes the billing rate for the
user subject only to the location of the MU.” From the language
of the claim, the claim is not limited to changing the billing
rate subject only to the location of the MU, as the claim is
broad enough to read on changing the billing rate based on the
location of the MU, as well as on whether the user or subscriber
is willing to accept ads. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
appellants’ assertion (id.) that Owensby does not teach offering
a subsidy responsive to a user’s location.
For the same reasons, we are not persuaded by appellants’
assertion (reply brief, page 2) that Owensby does not condition
the subsidy on the location of the mobile terminal (cell phone).
Nor do we agree with appellants assertion (id.) that the
determination of whether to grant a subsidy in Owensby is not
based on where the user is located.
In addition, we are not persuaded by appellants’ assertion
(reply brief, page 4, footnote 1) that appellants’ position has
always been that the “responsive to” language clearly
differentiates the claimed invention from Owensby. As found,
supra, when a determination is made by the system of Owensby that
a subscriber is outside a location where an ad or ads (and
subsidy) are available, the subscriber’s billing rate is adjusted
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007