Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
Regarding the issue of whether Hendrey displays the list of matches to
the user, we note that Hendrey expressly discloses examples of mobile
telecommunication units (MUs or TUs) as “cell phones and other related
devices.” (Hendrey, col. 1, ll. 22-23). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that the only reasonable way for a person to perform matchmaker functions
using Hendrey’s mobile telecommunication units is by use of the device
display. Therefore, as an issue of fact, we find the weight of the evidence
supports our finding that Hendrey teaches and/or suggests conveying the
sorted list information to a person via the cell phone display in the
embodiment where the person is the matchmaker (See Hendrey, col. 12, ll.
53-56).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find the proffered
combination of Bork and Hendrey reasonably teaches and/or suggests the
recited limitations of “listing each identifier on a display, wherein the list is
sorted in order of at least one of distance and direction from the handheld
computer;” (Claim 1). We have addressed the combinability of Bork and
Hendrey supra. Thus, we find Appellant has failed to rebut the Examiner’s
legal conclusion of obviousness by establishing insufficient evidence of
prima facie obviousness or evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Bork in view of Hendrey.
Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed to the
separate patentability of dependent claims 2-5. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-5 as being unpatentable over Bork in view
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013