Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721
The appellant argues that there is no motivation in Suarez
or Fan to merge the two technologies, and that it is unclear how
Suarez would be modified by one of ordinary skill in the art to
incorporate Fan’s disclosure (brief, page 16).
The motivation would have been to provide the taxicab
passengers with Fan’s location relevant information, and Suarez
would have been modified by programming the wireless
communication device’s processor to receive the data and display
it to the passengers.
Claims 3 and 5-9
Regarding claims 3 and 5-9 the appellant relies upon the
arguments set forth with respect to claims 1 and 2 (brief,
pages 16-19).1 Those arguments are not persuasive for the
reasons given above regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 2.
Claim 10
The appellant argues that there is no suggestion in Suarez
to add a second screen display coupled to the processor (brief,
page 20).
1 The appellant recites the limitations of claims 3 and 5-9 (brief, pages 17-19), but
that is not a substantive argument for the separate patentability of those claims.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007