Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
39-44). Thus, Appellant concludes that Bork is primarily concerned with
providing specific distance and direction information to a user (App. Br. 14).
In contrast, Appellant notes that Hendrey’s connections are initiated
between two or more mobile telecommunications users based on predefined
criteria without providing specific distance or direction information to the
user (See Hendrey, col. 5, ll. 21-25; see also col. 7, ll. 9-12). Appellant
notes that Hendrey’s user merely provides the predefined criteria used to
identify callees with whom a connection is then automatically initiated.
Thus, Appellant contends that Hendrey’s approach is a substantial change in
operation from Bork’s system, where specific distance and direction
information is provided to a user. Appellant contends that applying the
concepts of Hendrey to Bork’s device would eliminate displaying the
desired direction and distance information which is a central feature of Bork.
Thus, Appellant concludes the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness (App. Br. 14-15).
The Examiner disagrees (Ans. 22). The Examiner notes that Hendrey
specifically teaches the use of global positioning systems, time difference of
arrival (TDOA), and angle of arrival (AOA) for determining the location of
telecommunication users (See Hendrey, col. 5, ll. 26-41). The Examiner
further notes that Hendrey teaches notions of distance, as follows:
notions of distance are in particular intended to encompass not
only literal distance measure, but additionally any and all
measures conducive to identifying a set of users who would
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013