Appeal 2007-2347
Application 10/122,743
It follows that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 2. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection of
claim 2.
IV. CLAIM 4
Appellant asserts that Berenson “fails to teach (i) automatically
suppressing, and (ii) superfluous reminder messages stored on the service
station.” (Reply Br. 5). The Examiner asserts that Berenson discloses these
features (Supp. Ans. 5). A definition of “superfluous” was not provided in
the record. Therefore, we adopt a reasonable definition of the term
“superfluous message” as a message that is in excess of what is needed or is
non-essential. Berenson discloses that the calendaring system “may also
delete [a] previous reminder, if unread by the user or if it has already been
read.” (Para [0041]). A previous reminder that is either unread by the user
or already read by the user would be of no value to the user. Hence, such a
message is considered to be “in excess of what is needed” or “non-essential”
(i.e., “superfluous”). This superfluous message is detected in the
calendaring system of Berenson.
In addition, the Berenson system checks “the user’s personal calendar
system for availability before determining the media over which to send the
event message.” Berenson further discloses that “if the user is at home, a
phone message may be preferable; if at work, an email; if on the road, a
wireless message, etc.” (Para. [0043]). In this case, if the user is at home
and a phone message is preferable, for example, an e-mail message would be
considered in excess of what is needed or non-essential. Therefore, such a
message is construed as being “superfluous.” This message is not only
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013