Appeal No. 1997-0606
Application No. 08/169,048
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner
indicates how he reads the claim on the disclosure of Frost
[answer, pages 4-5]. Appellant broadly asserts that Frost
does not anticipate the claimed invention because Frost does
not teach or suggest steps (a)-(c) and (e) of claim 1 [brief,
page 10]. Appellant does not address these steps
specifically, but rather, he argues that the Frost disclosure
of suspending pager service prior to traveling and reinstating
the service after arrival at a destination is different from
the claimed invention [id., pages 10-11]. The examiner
responds that the differences between Frost and the disclosed
invention are not relevant to the claimed invention, and that
the steps of claim 1 are each performed in Frost [answer,
pages 10-11].
We agree with the conclusion of the examiner. In our
view, each of the steps as broadly recited in claim 1 is
disclosed by Frost. The paging signals in Frost are
transmitted with location identifiers associated therewith
[see Figure 7, for example]. The Frost system receives
information regarding the new location of the pager. The
claim does not preclude user intervention in carrying out this
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007