Appeal 2007-1568
Application 09/900,375
not limited to a physical representation of a time segment in the dial face.
Broadly construed, it can also be interpreted as being any portion, duration,
or period of time (in the dial face) in the course of a day (during which an
event/activity is scheduled to occur). We therefore, favor the Examiner’s
broader construction of the limitation “time of day segment” over
Appellant’s narrower definition, which has no basis in the claim.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner, as properly argued in the Answer
(7), that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily appreciated that
users cannot be reminded of jobs to be done if such jobs were not previously
scheduled. Thus, Hepp’s disclosure of reminding users of jobs to be done at
particular time periods in the course of a day teaches the claimed scheduled
activities associated with time of day segments.
In light of these findings, we conclude that Hepp’s teachings of
displaying objects in the dial face to depict seasonal change, coupled with
the teaching of reminding users of jobs to be done in the course of a day
would have predictably led the ordinarily skilled artisan to graphically
represent on the dial face a scheduled activity associated with a time of day
segment. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966). It follows that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable over Hepp. We affirm this rejection.
Appellant did not provide separate arguments with respect to the
rejections of claims 5 and 8. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as
being representative of these claims. Claims 5 and 8 consequently fall
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013