Appeal No. 2002-1236
Application No. 08/359,743
language to support this argument. Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection
of dependent claim 5 and claims 6, 8, 9, and 32 which appellants have grouped
therewith.
The examiner goes on to address claim 6 even though appellants have elected
to group this claim with dependent claim 5. The examiner explains that when a mobile
station does not respond with a page response in its last known location, then it is next
paged in the paging area, and the old location is deleted from the database and the new
location replaces the old location. The examiner maintains that this meets the language
of claim 6. (See answer at page 5.) We agree with the examiner’s application of the
teachings of Boudreau, and appellants have presented no evidence to rebut this
specific and reasonable interpretation. Additionally, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 6 independently of appellants’ grouping with claim 5.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007