Appeal No. 2006-1978
Application No. 10/027,572
these claims but, instead, rely on arguments made with respect to claim 1, which
arguments we found to be unpersuasive for all of the reasons discussed supra.
We also make the observation, referring to our earlier discussion of
Alperovich, that Alperovich discloses, as presently recited in claim 1, the
embedding of a field, i.e. header field 320, in an SMS message by an originator of
the message. From our review of Alperovich, we fail to see why, considering the
data populating this header field, such a header field would not be reasonably
interpreted by the ordinarily skilled artisan as a “valued-added” field as claimed.
In other words, the “value” added to the SMS message 310 in Alperovich is
designated by the “private” identifier 325 (along with group ID 328), which is
indicative of a “value-added service,” i.e., the delivery of a “private” message
requested by the originator. Further, as disclosed by Alperovich (page 6, lines
13-24), the “value-added service” is “instantiated” by the combination, i.e.,
comparison, of the populated field 320, i.e., the group ID, supplied by the
originator and the list of originator-specific group ID’s stored in SIM card 308 .
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007