Appeal No. 2006-2106 Page 4
Application No. 09/585,767
obviousness. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come forward with
evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie
case. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed waived [see 37
CFR § 41.37(c) (1) (vii)].
Appellant’s arguments in response to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection assert a failure to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness since
proper motivation for the proposed combination of the Raith and Calaman prior
art references has not been established. After careful review of the disclosures
of Raith and Calaman, in light of the arguments of record, we are in general
agreement with the Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer.
According to Appellant (Brief, pages 8-10; Reply Brief, pages 2-4), since
Raith is directed to the use of cell phones for emergency communication while
Calaman specifically states that cell phones are not suitable for personal distress
emergency situations, the ordinarily skilled artisan would not be led to combine
the teachings of thee references. We do not find this persuasive. As pointed out
by the Examiner (Answer, page 5), both Raith and Calaman are concerned with
providing emergency communication services to users of communication devices
who are traveling outside their home location.
Further, while Raith provides location specific emergency contact
information to cell phone users who may be traveling away from their home
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007