Appeal No. 2002-1006
Application 09/132,351
device is a characteristic of the communication device itself,
and that Sanders device is limited to a single pre-defined
dispatch group. Appellant argues that by contrast by using “a
separately defined field” as a “group identifier” in claim 1,
multiple groups may be designated using different groups
identifiers.
We fail to find that Appellant’s claimed language “a
separately defined field” as a “group identifier” precludes the
Examiner from reading the ID of the Sanders communication device
on Appellant’s claimed group identifier. As pointed out above,
Appellant’s claim does not require multiple groups being
designated using different group identifiers. Appellant’s claim
broadly read only requires one group of plurality of subscriber
numbers, and one group identifier associated with that group of
subscriber numbers. Furthermore, the claim requires that the
group identifier be a separately defined field. As pointed out
above, the group identifier being required to be a separately
defined field simply requires the group identifier to be a
separate number from the plurality of called subscriber numbers.
Furthermore, we fail to find anything in the Appellant’s
specification that has a special definition for the term
“separately defined field.” Therefore, we find that the Examiner
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007