Appeal No. 2000-0264
Application No. 08/752,624 Page 14
However, appellant has failed to provide any reasons why
appellant considers the structure of the prior art to not be the
same as or equivalent to the structure disclosed in appellant's
specification. With respect to (a) and (d), the identical
function of the means-plus-function clause is met by Gaskill's
allowing of an originating user to call a local paging number in
a first country in order to page a receiving user who is located
in a second country. We distinguish (d) from claim 1 because
claim 1 requires the originating user to enter a paging I.D.
With respect to (b) we find that the identical function of the
means-plus-function language is met by col. 15, lines 39-42 of
Gaskill which disclose that if the requested number is outside
the local subscriber data base, a request for roamer information
is made at step 262 (figure 3A) over the international network to
the proper clearinghouse. With respect to (c), the identical
function of the means-plus-function clause regarding the
designating means is met by the country code inputted as part of
the up to fifteen digit paging number inputted by the originating
caller in Gaskill (col. 8, lines 16-19). With regard to (e) we
make reference to our findings, supra, with respect to claim 6.
With regard to whether the structure disclosed by the prior art
for carrying out the claimed means is the same as or is
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007