Appeal 2007-1407
Application 09/823,141
column 3, lines 60-67 and column 6, lines 5-10; column 6, lines 16-23, 30-
32, and 50-52; and column 4, lines 20-22 and column 9, lines 26-38,
respectively. The issue, therefore, is whether Fernandez discloses the
limitations of sensing the absence of the object at the intermediate location,
transmitting a second signal in response to sensing the absence of the object,
and automatically removing a reminder message in response to receiving the
second signal.
Fernandez discloses (col. 3, ll. 46-48 and col. 6, ll. 5-32) remotely
sensing the presence of an object at a particular location and transmitting a
signal in response to sensing the object. Fernandez (col. 9, ll. 26-34) further
discloses monitoring "object presence, movement and/or other observed
condition in one or more monitored locations," and refers to "recording or
alerting appropriately, for example, when object delivery is late, early, on
schedule, unscheduled, or absent" (emphasis ours). Thus, Fernandez
arguably teaches continued monitoring of the object, including determining
when the object is absent from the monitored location, and transmitting
signals regarding the location of the object.
However, we find nothing in Fernandez that teaches or suggests
automatically removing a reminder message in response to receiving the
signal that the object is absent from the monitored location, which is recited
in each of independent claims 1 and 11. The portions relied upon by the
Examiner for automatically removing a reminder message teach updating a
database that maintains past, current, and expected future locations for the
sensors and comparing object presence with an object's movement schedule
maintained in a database. The portions relied upon do not even mention a
reminder message, and, thus, do not discuss automatically removing such a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013