Appeal No. 2003-0705
Application No. 09/144,024
when/whether to retrieve the message. When the user retrieves the message and,
possibly answers it (the user does have a transceiver, which is capable of transmitting
and receiving), this results in two-way communication (“advantaged” mode).
Accordingly, appellants’ argument in this regard is not persuasive.
With regard to claims 3, 4 and 5, describing facsimile, data and voice
communication indications, such specific types of communication are clearly suggested
by Helferich’s disclosure of the type of message being “e-mail, voice, or text” (column 3,
line 19) and the paging transceiver not being limited to voice messages, but, rather, it
may include “numeric messages, alphanumeric messages, voice or other audio
messages, video messages, graphics or even data” (column 15, lines 43-48).
With regard to claims 10 and 27, appellants’ argument focuses on neither of the
applied references disclosing or suggesting the existence of a “disadvantaged mode”
(principal brief-page 8) and that because they do not disclose or suggest this mode,
they cannot disclose or suggest the selective reception of a paging message using an
ID code in a disadvantaged mode.
The argument is not persuasive because, for the reasons supra, we do find that
Helferich suggests a “disadvantaged mode.”
With regard to claims 11, 12, 17, 18, 25 and 29, appellants state that these
claims relate to the specific 53 bit message sent to mobile terminals to communicate
the ID code for the terminal, and the call type indication in disadvantaged mode, while
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007