Ex Parte Anvekar et al - Page 2



             Appeal No. 2006-1978                                                                               
             Application No. 10/027,572                                                                         

             insertion in a SMS message to the complex initiation of a teleconference call using                
             inter-exchanged SMS messages.                                                                      
                   Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:                               
                1. A method for processing a short message service (SMS) message comprising                     
                   embedding a value-added field in the SMS message by an originator of the                     
             SMS message, the field being indicative of a value-added service requested by the                  
             originator, and                                                                                    
                   instantiating the value-added service from the combination of the field                      
             supplied by the originator and originator-specific data pre-stored in an originator                
             database.                                                                                          
                   The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                                              
             Lehto et al. (Lehto)             US 2002/0177455 A1               Nov. 28, 2002                    
                                                                         (filed May 23, 2001)                   
             Alperovich et al. (Alperovich) WO 99/57927                       Nov. 11, 1999                    
                   Claim 19 stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                           
             anticipated by Alperovich.  Claims 1-18 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.                     
             § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alperovich in view of Lehto.                                   
                   Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,                          
             reference is made to the Brief (Substitute, filed March 10, 2006) and Answer                       
             (mailed September 21, 2005) for their respective details.                                          

                                                       2                                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007