Appeal No. 2005-2584
Application No. 09/897,331
Further, it appears that the examiner has interpreted Haeggstrom’s figure 2 and the
statements in column 5 which discuss a HLR to conclude that communication between
the HLR and the serving GPRS must go through the base station. While we agree with
the examiner that Figure 2 of Haeggstrom shows a HLR with a communication path to
the base station that does not include the serving GSN. Further, we concur with the
examiner that Haeggstrom, in column 5, lines 7 through 10, identifies that the GPRS
network can make user of a HLR of the PLMN network. However, we find no teaching
of messages from HLR to the mobile unit, nor a teaching or suggestion that if such
messages were to be sent that they would necessarily go through the serving GPRS
node. Thus, we do not find that either of the references teaches or suggests that
location messages go from the location server to the base station then from the base
station to the serving GPRS node and then to the mobile unit. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or claims 2 through 4, which ultimately
depend upon claim 1.
We next consider the independent claim 5. On pages 19 and 20 of the brief
appellants present arguments similar to those presented regarding claim 1. Appellants
argue that claim 5 is the inverse of claim 1 and requires transmission from the mobile
unit to the location server.
We concur with appellants. Claim 5 contains limitations directed to transmitting
a location service message from a mobile station to a serving GPRS node, from the
serving GPRS node to a base station and from the base station to the location server.
As stated supra we do not find that either of the references teach or suggest location
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007