Appeal No. 2006-1978
Application No. 10/027,572
and Lehto, as well as in Appellant’s disclosed invention, is a result of the
combination of the “data” in the fields with pre-stored user data. This is confirmed
by Appellants’ remarks (Brief, at 26) which state “the phrase ‘value-added
service’” is the result of instantiating the combination of generic data (emphasis
added) supplied by the user via the value-added field and the user-specific data
pre-stored in the database.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion, for all of the reasons
articulated by the Examiner, that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
recognized and appreciated that the value-added service disclosed by the short-
messaging system of Lehto would serve as an obvious enhancement to the system
of Alperovich. Accordingly, since it is our view that the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness based on the combination of Alperovich and Lehto has not
been overcome by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection based on the
combination of Alperovich and Lehto of claims 2-5, 7-11, 13, and 15-18.
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief make no separate arguments for patentability of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007