Appeal 2007-0647
Application 10/421,366
We further note that August expressly teaches a corporate web server
(33) connected to the vendor transaction facility through the Internet
(August, ¶0019). We have found supra that August expressly teaches a
“telematics control unit” (e.g., a PDA or a wireless telephone, see August,
¶ 0018).
Here, we find the web server taught by August inherently receives a
notification that a telematics control unit (e.g., a PDA or a wireless
telephone) is at least within the wireless coverage area at the time the
connection is established. We note that a connection must necessarily occur
before the PDA and the data server can communicate. We find the
establishment of such a connection (i.e., notification) reasonably teaches
and/or suggests the recited step of detection. Thus, we broadly but
reasonably construe “detection” as a notification. Therefore, we conclude
the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness that has not
been persuasively rebutted by Appellants by a showing of insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case
with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 53 as being
unpatentable over August in view of Visconti.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 14-18, 21, 23-28, 30-36, 38-41, 43, and 45-52
Appellants argue that dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 14-18, 21, 23-28,
30-36, 38-41, 43, and 45-52 are allowable by virtue of their dependency
from independent claims 1, 20, and 37 (App. Br. 9, ¶1). Thus, Appellants
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013