Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
Appellant argues that the combination of Bork and Hendrey does not
teach or suggest the recited limitations of:
wherein the list is sorted in order of at least one of the distance
and direction from the handheld computer;
(Claim 24; see also App. Br. 12).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 24
for essentially the same reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer,
and also as discussed above regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 16. We
have previously addressed the issue of the sorted list in the discussion of
independent claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 24 as being unpatentable over Bork in view of Hendrey.
Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed to the
separate patentability of dependent claims 25-29. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 25-29 as being unpatentable over Bork in
view of Hendrey for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim
24. See In re Young, 927 F.2d at 590. See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
Dependent claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 31
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and
31 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Bork in view of Hendrey,
and further in view of Kikinis.
Appellant contends that Kikinis fails to remedy the deficiencies of
Bork and Hendrey, as previously discussed (App. Br. 15).
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013