Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
and also as discussed above regarding independent claims 1 and 8. We find
a processor is inherent in the mobile phones used by both Bork and Hendrey.
We find the list of callee phone numbers (221) shown in Hendrey’s Figure 2
represents the callee mobile phones (i.e., computing devices). Thus, we find
the proffered combination of Bork and Hendrey teaches and/or suggests
“wherein the processor instructs the display to list a plurality of other
computing devices located within a range of the transmitter,” as claimed
(Claim 16; see also Hendrey, col. 6, l. 36). We have previously addressed
the issue of the display and the sorted list in the discussion of independent
claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 16 as being unpatentable over Bork in view of Hendrey. Appellant has
not presented any substantive arguments directed to the separate
patentability of dependent claims 17-21 and 23. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 17-21 and 23 as being unpatentable over
Bork in view of Hendrey for the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to claim 16. See In re Young, 927 F.2d at 590. See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
Claims 24-29
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24-29 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 24 as the representative claim for this rejection. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013