Appeal No. 1997-0606
Application No. 08/169,048
step. The Frost system identifies (decodes) the new location
of the pager and routes messages addressed to that pager to
the new location. Since the examiner would appear to have
properly read claim 1 on the disclosure of Frost, and since
appellant has not offered a convincing argument in rebuttal,
we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Since claims
2, 4 and 5 are not separately argued, we also sustain the
rejection with respect to these claims.
Although appellant nominally argues the rejection of
independent claims 8 and 13 separately, the arguments
presented are exactly the same arguments we considered above
with respect to claim 1. Since the argued limitations of
claims 8 and 13 are similar to the recitations of claim 1, we
sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Although claims 12, 14 and 15 are nominally argued
separately, appellant makes the same argument with respect to
each of these claims. Specifically, appellant argues that in
Frost the geographic area is identified by the user placed
telephone call so that there is no need to determine the
geographic location [brief, pages 13-14, 16 and 17]. This
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007