Appeal 2007-0647
Application 10/421,366
find that reservations would be advantageous for certain special occasions,
such as a child’s party, for example.
Therefore, we do not agree with Appellants’ assertion that an artisan
would not have been motivated to combine August and Visconti in the
manner suggested by the Examiner. With respect to the issue of hindsight,
we note that Appellants merely assert that the only suggestion to make the
proffered combination comes from Appellants’ Specification, including the
claims (See App. Br. 13). Because Appellants do not provide further
explanation, we find Appellants’ conclusory argument insufficient to show
error in the Examiner’s prima facie case.
Elements under section 103
Appellants contend the proffered combination of August and Visconti
fails to teach “receiving a notification at a data server that a telematics
control unit is detected within a wireless coverage area, as recited in claim
53” (App. Br. 12).
After carefully considering the record before us, we find Appellants
have acknowledged that August teaches transmitting a menu to a device
(App. Br. 6, see last sentence on page). Indeed, August expressly discloses:
Turning first to the operation of the personal wireless device
11, in FIG. 5, when first enabled for ordering, a display is
presented to a user of the various goods and/or services which
may be selected. For example, the control circuit 203 may
consult and operate display 207 to display available types of
products or services, such as lodging, fast food, video stores,
etc. [emphasis added].
(August, ¶0021).
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013