Appeal No. 2000-0264
Application No. 08/752,624 Page 13
rejection of claim 6, and claims 7-9 dependent therefrom, is
reversed.
We turn next to claims 12-17. For the reasons which follow,
we affirm the rejection of claims 12-14 and reverse the rejection
of claims 15-17. We make reference to our findings, supra, with
respect to the teachings of the prior art. Appellant asserts
(brief, page 10) that the prior art "does not disclose the means
in the instant specification, or equivalent thereto" for:
(a) allowing an originating user to communicate with a first web
site or server in a first country in order to page the receiving
user who's pager is located in a second country; (b) transmitting
a paging message from said originating user to said first web
site or server, then to a second web site or server located in
the same country; (c) designating the second country; (d)
allowing the originating user to designate the second country
when the originating user communicates with the first web site or
server, and (e) allowing the receiving user to designate the
second country for future pages to said pager to said pager so
that when the receiving user is paged in the future, the paging
system will first attempt to page said pager of the receiving
user in the designated second country.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007