Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
have the least difficult separation to overcome in order to attend
a physical group meeting.
(Hendrey, col. 8, ll. 56-67).
Thus, the Examiner finds the teachings of Hendrey coincide with the
teachings of Bork “in that not only the physical distance between mobile
devices is taken into account but also the path of least resistance when
determining a place for a physical group meeting between the mobile users.”
(Ans. 23, see Bork Fig. 2, col. 4, l. 54 through col. 5, l. 67; see also Hendrey,
col. 8, ll. 56-67). The Examiner concludes the combined teachings of Bork
and Hendrey would have lead an artisan to a mobile device that allows for
the searching, sorting and connection of users located proximate to each
other, while “taking into account the distance, direction and path of least
resistance between the mobile devices.” (Ans. 23, see Bork Fig. 2, col. 4, l.
54 through col. 5, l. 67; see also Hendrey, col. 6, l. 1 through col. 7, l. 3, col.
8, ll. 56-67, col. 9, ll. 45-53, col. 10, ll. 1-39, and col. 12, ll. 38-56).
We agree with the Examiner that Bork and Hendrey are properly
combinable for essentially the same reasons stated in the Answer. We find
Hendrey’s matchmaking feature would have enhanced Bork’s system which
displays the direction and distance to another person’s wireless device.
Once the direction and distance to a particular person’s wireless device was
located by Bork’s system (as described at column 2, lines 25-35), Hendrey’s
matchmaker system would have determined how well the user attributes
match each other, as described at column 10, lines 1-21. Significantly, the
combined system proffered by the Examiner would provide the user with
both distance and direction information. While both Bork and Hendrey
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013