Appeal No. 2000-0611
Application No. 08/708,179
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed Oct. 14, 1998)1 for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 13, filed Aug. 31,1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 15, filed Dec. 14, 1998) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the combination of Comroe and Siwiak does not teach or
suggest transmitting a point-to-multipoint message, receiving the point-to-multipoint
message at the plurality of mobile stations and transmitting an acknowledgment to the
BMI using a point-to-point message as recited in the language of claim 1. (See brief at
page 7.) We agree with appellants.
The examiner maintains that Siwiak teaches the use of a broadcast message
from a central station to a group of acknowledge back pagers and nonacknowledge
back pagers. (See answer at page 8.) The examiner maintains that a point-to-
1 We note that the examiner included another Examiner's Answer after the reply
brief which appears to be the same as the original Answer. Therefore, we will refer to
the original since a supplemental answer is not allowed as a matter of right by the
examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007