Appeal No. 2006-2700
Application No. 10/705,456
function-specific parameters pertaining to a wireless mobile device
to thereby generate a function-specific response to a submitted
request. We have already addressed this argument in the discussion
of representative claim 3 above, and we do not agree with
Appellants. Further, Appellants argue that neither Wookey, nor Wray
cures the deficiencies of the Shapiro-Fisher-Jones combination. As
noted above, we find no such deficiencies in the stated combination
for Wookey and Wray to remedy. 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 5, 9, and 13. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 5, 9, and 13 is sustained.
III. Under the Judicially-Created Doctrine of Obviousness Double
Patenting, is the provisional rejection of claims 3 through 21 as
being unpatentable claims 1-15 of co-pending Application No.
2004/013961 proper?
With respect to the provisional rejection of claims 3
through 21, Appellants submit at page 1 of the Reply Brief that
they will provide a terminal disclaimer to overcome the rejection
upon receipt of an indication that the claims are otherwise
allowable. Appellants provided no further arguments.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013