Appeal No. 2000-1722
Application No. 08/802,578
together. In particular, appellants group the claims and provide
arguments for each group in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(c)(7) and (8) as follows: (1) claims 5 and 11 to 14,
(2) claims 6, 7, 15, 16, and 18, (3) claims 8 and 17, (4) claim
9, and (5) claim 10.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 5 through 8 and
13 through 18 over Wang and of claims 9 and 10 over Champion. We
reach the opposite conclusion for the obviousness rejection of
claims 5 through 8, 11, 12, and 14 through 17 over Champion.
Regarding Wang, appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that Wang
does not teach a method of compiling an informational database
nor a subscriber profile database that specifies the type of
information each subscriber wishes to receive based on message
content. We agree. Wang discloses a customer paging area memory
320 which stores information as to a customer's location
registration and a message memory 310 for storing the message
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007