Appeal No. 2006-2418
Application No. 09/973,412
At best, the collective teachings of Owensby and Heddaya suggest generally
automatically sending location-related information to a user's wireless terminal based on
the terminal's location. But the prior art hardly suggests that such information be in the
form of IP addresses, let alone IP addresses from each of which unique location-
specific content may be accessed as claimed. On this record, the only reasonable
suggestion to deliver such location-specific IP addresses in the manner claimed stems
from appellant's own disclosure which ultimately results in improper hindsight
reconstruction of the invention.
Although we cannot say that no prior art exists suggesting that delivering such
identified IP addresses to a mobile terminal would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan, we can say that no such prior art exists on this record. Because the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of independent claims 39 and 47,
the rejection of those claims is therefore reversed. Since we do not sustain the
examiner's
rejection of the independent claims, we likewise do not sustain the examiner's rejection
of dependent claims 40-43, 46, 48-51, and 54.
With regard to the rejection of dependent claims 44, 45, 52, and 53, the examiner
adds Guedalia to the Owensby/Heddaya combination [answer, pages 9-11]. However,
since Guedalia does not cure the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent
claims 39 and 47, the obviousness rejection of claims 44, 45, 52, and 53 over Owensby,
Heddaya, and Guedalia is also not sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007