Appeal No. 2006-3323 Application No. 10/287,151 III. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 4 and 7 as being unpatentable over Schmier in combination with Ran and Ryu, Respectively, Proper? With respect to claims 4 and 6, Appellant argues in the Appeal and Reply Briefs that Schmier does not teach claimed invention. Particularly, Appellant asserts that Schmier does not teach estimating and sending the time-of-arrival bounds for a confidence interval for a user in transit from a source location to a destination location. We have already addressed this argument in the discussion of claim 1 above, and we agree with Appellant. Further, Appellant argues that neither Ran nor Ryu cures the deficiencies of Schmier. We also agree with Appellant. It is therefore our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set forth in claims 4 and 7. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 7. 14Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007