Appeal No. 2006-1978
Application No. 10/027,572
is a “teleconferencing” field. In addressing the “teleconferencing” language of
these claims, the Examiner takes the position (Answer, page 12) that the messaging
capability of the system disclosed by Alperovich includes what the Examiner
characterizes as a “group call/service” and that this “group call/service is a tele-
service which is a teleconference, a communication between an exclusive group.”
We agree with Appellants, however, that what is actually described by
Appellants is an SMS system with “broadcast message” capability. In accordance
with this disclosed capability, Alperovich describes the sending of a message by an
originator to a restricted group of recipients identified by a group identification
number. We find, however, no evidence presented by the Examiner to support the
Examiner’s conclusion that such a “broadcast message” capability would be
recognized as equivalent to a “teleconferencing” function. To the contrary, the
evidence of record supports Appellants’ contention that, as described in
Appellants’ specification and as argued by Appellants (Brief, page 7), the
ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize a “teleconference” as one in which a
group of individuals have the ability to engage in concurrent, two-way
communication. In our view, the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007