Appeal 2007-1407
Application 09/823,141
(ii) generating a reminder message for display to said user to
perform said scheduled task;
(iii) automatically removing said reminder message upon
receiving said second signal from said first sensor indicating
completion of said scheduled task.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims is:
Fernandez US 6,697,103 B1 Feb. 24, 2004
(filed Mar. 19, 1998)
Claims 1, 3 through 6, and 10 through 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Fernandez.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed October 23, 2006) and to
Appellant's Brief (filed November 21, 2005) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 3 through 6, and 10 through 18.
OPINION
Appellant contends (Br. 5-7) that Fernandez fails to disclose the claim
limitations of (1) remotely sensing the absence of the object at the
intermediate location after transmission of the first signal (i.e., claim
1(b)(iii)), (2) transmitting a second signal in response to sensing the absence
(i.e., claim 1(b)(iv)), and (3) automatically removing the reminder message
upon receiving the second signal (i.e., claim 1(d)(iii)). The Examiner
(Answer 4) finds that Fernandez teaches the above-noted limitations at
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013