Appeal No. 2002-1952
Application No. 09/071,373
a description of the event, the reminder data stored in
the local memory until the future time;
determining in the broadcast receiver from the locally
stored reminder data whether to display the reminder at
the future time; and
responsive to the future time, displaying on the display
device the reminder including the description of the
event.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Florin et al. (Florin) 5,594,509 Jan. 14, 1997
Kelly et al. (Kelly) 5,907,322 May 25, 1999
(filed Oct. 16, 1996)
Claims 1 and 3-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Florin and Kelly.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 20, mailed March
22, 2002) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 18, filed February 12,
2002) and the reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed June 6, 2002) for
Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Florin for teaching the steps of
receiving and displaying of broadcast data, receiving a user
input to establish a reminder and displaying the reminder at a
future time (answer, page 3). The Examiner, however, indicates
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007