Appeal 2007-2347
Application 10/122,743
references recognizes the … problems solved by Appellant’s disclosure”
(App. Br. 15) and that “the prior art did not appreciate or recognize” the
problem being addressed by Appellant’s disclosure (id. 15-16). However,
problems motivating one of ordinary skill in the art to combine references
are not limited to problems being solved by the patentee. Specifically, any
problem known in the art at the time of the invention can provide a reason
for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine references. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
It follows that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 11 as being obvious over Berenson and Boyer. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, and of claims 1, 3, 6-
10, 12 and 13, which fall therewith.
III. CLAIM 2
Appellant asserts that Berenson fails to disclose “maintaining a
current copy of an internally stored reminder message in the service station.”
(Reply Br. 5). The Examiner asserts that Berenson provides this feature
(Supp. Ans. 5). Berenson discloses that “the system puts an entry into the
user’s electronic personal calendar system” and that the “personal calendar
system holds the event data so the user may view it in the context of an
overall personal schedule.” (Para. [0031]). Hence, a “current copy” of the
entry is maintained (i.e., the system “holds” the event data) at the device. In
addition, the reminder message is also stored “in the service station” in the
system of Berenson (para. [0030]).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Berenson teaches the
argued feature of claim 2.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013