Appeal 2007-2347
Application 10/122,743
"Rather than reiterate the positions of parties in toto, we focus on the
issue therebetween." Ex Parte Filatov, No. 2006-1160, 2007 WL 1317144,
at *2 (BPAI 2007). The Examiner indicates that claim 11 is obvious over
the combination of Berenson and Boyer. The Examiner states:
Berenson teaches a computer with television capability
receives and stores a reminder message from a user in a
personal calendar system (reminder message is stored locally)
such as Microsoft Outlook for automatically transferring to an
web based calendaring system (automatically transferring the
reminder message to the service station) to request sending the
reminder message of a personal event to calendar owner or to
others (Figure 3, pages 1-4, [0016], [0025-0026], [0040-0044],
and [0047]).
. . . .
Boyer teaches user can use a personal computer (figure 1,
multimedia system 28), an integrated personal computer and a
television (figure 1, multimedia system 30), or Internet capable
set-top-box and a television to order an e-mail reminder
message (figure 1, multimedia system 32; pages 2-3, [0035 –
0038, and 0042-0043]).
(Supp. Ans. 3-4).
Appellant argues that there would have been insufficient motivation
for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Berenson and Boyer because
“neither reference suggests modifying a television to have a storage means,”
“neither of the cited references recognizes the … problems solved by
Appellant’s disclosure,” and “there is no suggestion of an advantage or
though not timely presented, because the Examiner addressed the arguments
in the Supplemental Answer (Nov. 13, 2006). Appellant filed the Second
Reply Brief (Jan. 16, 2007) as a response to the Supplemental Answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013