Appeal No. 2006-2723
Application No. 09/891,264
The Examiner’s position is that Yates’ user terminal corresponds to
Appellant’s claimed communication means (answer, page 19). The Examiner
supports this position by referring to Appellant’s own specification (specification,
page 3, paragraph 3) - which states that the communication means is essentially a
user’s terminal (answer, page 19).
Upon reviewing the evidence of record, we agree with the Examiner’s
position. Yates discloses the claimed communication means because the customer
terminal accesses the system, which utilizes one or more communication networks
and provides personal services to the user (col. 2, lines 40-42; col. 1, lines 56-59).
The function of this terminal is consistent with Appellant’s own disclosed
communication means, including the terminal for providing personal services to a
user (specification, page 3).
2. Whether the Combination of Yates and Beck is Proper
Appellant alleges that these two references solve different problems because
Beck discloses sharing service implementations between devices 101 and 121
having similar modules, like PDAs, whereas Yates requires transmission between
devices that are very different (brief, page 14).
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007