Appeal No. 2005-2584
Application No. 09/897,331
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Aarnio in view of Haeggstrom. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 4
through 7 of the answer.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs,
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer. With full consideration being given to the subject
matter on appeal, the examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellants and
examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 20.
Appellants argue on pages 6 through 9 of the brief, that there is no motivation to
combine the references as asserted by the examiner. On pages 9 through 15 of the
brief, appellants argue that even if the references were properly combined, Haeggstrom
does not teach a location server as required by the claims. Finally on pages 15 through
19 of the brief appellants argue, with respect to claim 1, the combination of the
references do not teach the method steps in the order claimed. Appellants argue, on
pages 17 and 18 of the brief:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007