Appeal No. 2005-2657 Page 16
Application No. 09/898,497
from a subsidized rate to billing at a non-subsidized rate, or
the subscriber can choose to go to a different location where a
subsidized call rate and ad or ads are available. If the
subscriber is billed at the non-subsidized rate and then travels
to an area where an ad or ads (and subsidy) are available, the
subscriber’s billing rate is adjusted to the subsidized billing
rate, which is different from the rate billed if no subsidy is
available.
From all of the above, we are not convinced of any error on
the part of the examiner. We are cognizant of the differences
between the disclosed inventions of appellants and Owensby.
However, these differences are not found in appellants’ claim 1.
In prosecution before the examiner, there is no reason why
appellants cannot amend the claims to distinguish over the
teachings of Owensby. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is affirmed.
Turning to claims 12 and 23, we note that appellants’
arguments, discussed supra, are directed to these independent
claims as well. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of
independent claims 12 and 23 for the same reasons as we affirmed
the rejection of claim 1. The rejection of claims 12 and 23 is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007