Appeal No. 2000-0611
Application No. 08/708,179
Therefore, it is clear that Siwiak does not teach the transmission of a point-to-multipoint
message, but rather multiple transmissions via a plurality of point-to-point messages
within a group of addresses.
Appellants argue that a "group call" as taught by Comroe is also disclosed by
Siwiak, but that this is not a point-to-multipoint or broadcast operation as described at
page 2, ll 23-32, page 4, l 18 to page 5, l 4 and page 11, ll 14-32. (See brief at page
9.) We agree with appellants that the "group call" of Comroe and Siwiak is not the
same as that disclosed at those portions of the specification, but we note that the
language of independent claim 1 does not recite the detail as set forth in the
specification. Appellants argue that the invention is an improved point-to-multipoint
message having a manual acknowledgment request and a method for enabling a
mobile station to selectively respond to the receipt of the point-to-multipoint message.
(See brief at page 9.) We find that the language of independent claim 1 does not
include limitations of a manual acknowledgment request and a enabling a mobile
station to selectively respond to the receipt of the point-to-multipoint message.
While appellants admit at page 9 of the brief that a point-to-multipoint was
known prior to their invention, the examiner has not relied upon this admission and
relies on the teachings of Comroe and Siwiak to teach the use of a point-to-multipoint
transmission.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007