Appeal 2007-2347
Application 10/122,743
We disagree with Appellant’s contention that the combination of
Berenson and Boyer does not teach a television set storing a reminder.
Specifically, Berenson discloses an “audio visual device such as a television
or a television receiver on a computer” (para. [0047]) that contains a
personal calendar that holds or stores a reminder (para. [0031]). The
personal calendar on the device (television or television receiver on a
computer) stores the reminder and therefore contains storage for storing the
reminder. Hence, we agree with the Examiner that Berenson discloses this
feature of a television storing a reminder. Boyer provides further support for
this teaching by disclosing that the device is a hybrid TV-PC or a television
set with a set-top box.
We also disagree with Appellant’s contention that neither Berenson
nor Boyer discloses automatically transferring messages to a service station.
As aforementioned, Berenson, for example, discloses a user requesting a
reminder for a particular program by entering the event into a search request
query or by entering an event criteria request. After the user in the Berenson
system enters the request, the request is stored in the user database.
Berenson does not indicate that the user must perform specific tasks to
forward the request to the user database. Hence, the request is transferred to
the user database automatically such that after the information is input into
the system by the user, the information is automatically transferred to the
user database. (Para. [0027]). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that
the combination of Berenson and Boyer provides for automatically
transferring a message.
Appellant further argues that there would have been no motivation to
combine the Berenson and Boyer references because “neither of the cited
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013