Appeal No. 2002-1006
Application 09/132,351
claim, simply requires that the group identifier is simply a
different number than the plurality of called subscriber numbers.
Finally, Appellant’s claim 1 recites the additional step of
“simultaneously transmitting said short message to each of said
plurality of called subscriber numbers by designating said group
identifier.” We note that the claim does not require a plurality
of group identifiers but only requires one. Furthermore, we note
that the group identifier only needs to point to one group of a
plurality of subscriber numbers. Thus, with this scope of
Appellant’s claim 1 in mind, we turn to Appellant’s argument.
Appellant argues that Sanders does not accommodate directing
a short message to different groups of called subscriber numbers
by designating different group identifiers. As pointed out
above, Appellant’s claim 1 does not require different groups of
subscriber numbers and does not require more than one group
identifier. Thus, Appellant’s claimed method simply requires
that there is only one group of subscriber numbers in which a
single identifier is associated.
We find that Sanders does teach registering a plurality of
called subscriber numbers in a short message service center of
said mobile communication by associating each of the plurality of
subscriber numbers with a group identifier, the group identifier
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007