Appeal No. 2006-2418
Application No. 09/973,412
limitation [brief, pages 10 and 12]. The examiner responds that the claimed limitation is
met by the prior art since (1) Heddaya uses URLs to link to internet content, and (2)
URLs inherently provide a unique protocol address from each of which unique content
may be accessed [answer, pages 14 and 15].
In addition, appellant argues that the references do not disclose associating each
of the plurality of unique IP addresses with different geographic locations as claimed
[brief, page 12]. Appellant notes that merely because Owensby states that information
may vary based on the subscriber's location does not mean that IP addresses are
associated with different geographic locations. According to appellant, Owensby does
not indicate that the information is associated with any IP address; rather, the
information is inserted into the call [brief, page 13; reply brief, page 7]. Appellant
emphasizes that Owensby is silent regarding the storage mechanism containing the
information or how the information is accessed that is inserted into the call [id.]. The
examiner responds that Owensby provides links to localized information dependent
upon the location of the mobile terminal, and Heddaya provides URLs to link to localized
information [answer, page 15].
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of independent claims 39 and 47. In
particular, we find no reasonable teaching or suggestion on this record regarding the
last recited limitation of the independent claims -- namely delivering the identified IP
address to the mobile terminal to enable the user to selectively access location-specific
unique content as claimed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007