Appeal 2007-2347
Application 10/122,743
benefit from the combination” (App. Br. 15-16). Appellant further argues
that Berenson and Boyer fail to teach storing a message in a television set
(Reply Br. 3) or a “means for automatically transferring [a] message to [a]
service station.” (Id. 4).
However, Berenson discloses a system in which a user accesses
television programming information on a device and requests a reminder
from a server for certain programs to be broadcast. User information is
stored in a user database that interacts with the web server and stores
notification requests and other information (paras. [0021], [0024], [0025]).
At an appropriate time, the reminder is sent to the user using any of a
number of methods (phone, e-mail, pager, etc.). (Paras. [0029], [0038]).
One type of such a reminder is an event message “where the system puts an
entry into the user’s electronic personal calendar system indicating the time
and location of the selected event. The personal calendar system holds the
event data so the user may view it in the context of an overall personal
schedule.” (Para. [0031]). Regarding the user device for requesting
reminders, Berenson discloses “activating an audio visual device such as a
television or a television receiver on a computer . . . .” (Para. [0047]).
Boyer discloses a similar method and system for providing a
requested reminder of an event, such as television program broadcast. As in
the Berenson system, Boyer discloses browsing program listings on a
device, requesting a reminder for a particular program, and receiving the
reminder at the device from a server at the time of broadcast (para. [0042]).
Boyer further discloses that the device is a computer, an integrated personal
computer and television (e.g., a PC-TV hybrid), or a television set with a set-
top box (paras. [0035] - [0038], Fig. 1).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013