Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
without displaying a list to the user. With regard to Fig. 2 and item 222,
Appellant submits Hendrey teaches that group members within a maximum
distance are selected, but does not teach that members of a group list 220 are
sorted in group list 220 based on distance values in distance entry 222. Thus,
Appellant concludes the combination of Bork and Hendrey does not teach or
suggest listing identifiers on a display where the list is sorted in order of
distance and/or direction, as required by the language of claim 1 (App. Br.
8).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner notes that a step of “sorting”
is not claimed, only that the displayed list is sorted by distance or direction
(See Claim 1). The Examiner points out that in the case where only two
contacts meet the criteria, the lists would be inherently sorted (either sorted
greatest to lowest or lowest to greatest), as broadly claimed. In the example
shown in Hendrey's Fig. 2 (i.e., a list with two entries), the Examiner
submits that regardless of the two values shown, Hendrey’s list of two
entries is either sorted greatest to lowest or lowest to greatest (distance), and
therefore clearly meets the broadly claimed “sorted” limitation (Ans. 13).
The Examiner acknowledges that Hendrey’s matchmaker is automated in the
embodiment argued by Appellant (Ans. 15). However, the Examiner notes
that Hendrey teaches an alternate embodiment, at column 12, lines 52-56,
where a person performs the matchmaker functions. Regarding displaying
the list of callees, the Examiner reasons that a person cannot efficiently
manipulate lists of user identifiers and relative distances without such data
lists being shown on the display of the wireless device (e.g., a cell phone)
(Ans. 15).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013