Appeal 2007-2347
Application 10/122,743
detected in the Berenson system, but transmission of such a superfluous
message is automatically suppressed (i.e., a phone message is transmitted to
a user at home but an e-mail message is suppressed). Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that Berenson teaches the argued feature of claim 4.
It follows that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 4. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection of
claim 4.
V. CLAIM 5
Appellant asserts that Berenson fails to disclose a first device that
“acknowledges the receipt of the first reminder” or that the
acknowledgement “is used as an alert to the existence of a superfluous
reminder message.” (Reply Br. 6). The Examiner asserts that Berenson
discloses these features (Supp. Ans. 5-6). Berenson discloses that the
system sends a “new reminder with . . . corrected data” and may further
delete a previous reminder “if unread by the user or if it has already been
read.” (Para. [0041]). The user acknowledges receipt of the reminder by
accepting or declining the entry from the system (i.e., “the correction to the
calendar entry . . . may be . . . an accept/decline entry, which allows the user
to decide whether to incorporate the correction into his calendar” (id.)). In
addition, the system notifies the user of the corrected information, thus
providing the user with an alert of the existence of not only the corrected
information but also the information that is deleted as a previous reminder.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Berenson teaches the
argued feature of claim 5.
It follows that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013