Appeal No. 2006-2700
Application No. 10/705,456
combination of Shapiro and Fisher teaches the claimed invention, as
discussed above, Jones is cumulative to a proper rejection of
representative claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In consequence, we do not find error in the Examiner’s
stated position, which concludes that the combination of Shapiro,
Fisher and Jones teaches the claimed limitation of processing a
plurality of function-specific parameters pertaining to a
wireless mobile device to thereby generate a function-specific
response to a submitted request. 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 have
suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set
forth in claims 3, 4, 6 through 8, 10 through 12, and 14 through
17. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 3, 4, 6 through 8, 10 through 12 and 14
through 17.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the rejection of claims 5, 9 and
13 as being unpatentable over the combination of Shapiro, Fisher,
Jones, Wookey and Wray proper?
With respect to claims 5, 9, and 13, Appellants argue in the
Appeal Brief that the combination of Shapiro, Fisher, Jones does
not disclose the claimed limitation of processing a plurality of
delete such limitation.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013