Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
of Hendrey for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. See
In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
Claims 8-13 and 15
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-13 and 15 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Bork in view of Hendrey. Since
Appellant’s arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these
claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will select
independent claim 8 as the representative claim for this rejection. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
Appellant argues that the combination of Bork and Hendrey does not
teach or suggest the recited limitations of:
listing the one or more local area computing devices on a
display, wherein the list is sorted in order of at least one of
distance and direction from the handheld computer;
(Claim 8; see also App. Br. 9).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 8 for
essentially the same reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, and
also as discussed above regarding claim 1. In particular, we find the list of
callee phone numbers (221) shown in Hendrey’s Figure 2 represents the
callee mobile phones (i.e., computing devices). We have previously
addressed the issue of the display and the sorted list in the discussion of
independent claim 1. Thus, we find the proffered combination of Bork and
Hendrey teaches and/or suggests “listing the one or more local area
computing devices on a display,” as claimed (Claim 8; see also Hendrey,
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013