Ex Parte Boyer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 25, 2011

11604992 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 25, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FRANKLIN E. BOYER, MARK A. REGOUBY and
TIMOTHY B. DEMERS
____________

Appeal 2009-012258
Application 11/604,992
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before GREGORY J. GONSALVES, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012258
Application 11/604,992

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 34-47. (App. Br. 2.) Claims 1-33 have been cancelled. (Id.) We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Disclosed Invention1
The disclosed invention provides “an on-line scheduling application
that users may personalize to obtain television, entertainment, and social-
activity-related information.” (Spec. 2:7-9.) “The scheduling application
may also provide users with an opportunity to enter scheduling information
for events that are personal to the user, such as birthdays, anniversaries,
holidays, or other important events.” (Spec. 36:8-12.) “The scheduling
application may also write events to the user’s data book to provide the user
with reminders for events that the user did not enter into the date book.”
(Spec. 37:1-4.) “The scheduling application may, for example, insert special
dates into the date book once the dates have expired (e.g., it may
automatically re-enter birthdays once they have passed).” (Spec. 37:9-12.)

Exemplary claim 34 follows:
1. A method for providing a user with personalized schedule information
for television-related and personal-related events, comprising:
providing the user with an opportunity to select at least one television-
related information source from a plurality of television-related information
sources for providing television program listings for the television-related
events;

1 The ensuing description constitutes findings of fact designated as FF 0.
Appeal 2009-012258
Application 11/604,992

3
providing the user with an opportunity to specify first criteria for
delivering at least one television program listing for the television-related
events from the at least one selected television-related information source;
providing the user with an opportunity to enter scheduling information
for an event personal to the user;
automatically entering scheduling information for an event personal to
the user based on an event personal to the user previously entered by the
user;
providing the user with an opportunity to select a delivery scheme
from a plurality of delivery schemes for delivering the personalized schedule
information, wherein the personalized schedule information includes the at
least one television program listing for the television-related events based on
the first specified criteria, the user entered scheduling information, and the
automatically entered scheduling information;
generating the personalized schedule information; and
delivering the personalized schedule information to the user based on
the delivery scheme selected by the user.

The Examiner rejected claims 34-39 and 41-46 as obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gerace (U.S. Patent No. 5,848,396, Dec. 8, 1998),
and Stahl (U.S. Patent No. 7,072,932 B1, July 4, 2006 ). (Ans. 4-9.)2

2 We understand from our review of the file history that there was an
exchange between the Examiner and Appellants as to whether Stahl is prior
art. But we also note that the Examiner found that Stahl is, in fact, prior art
because Appellants’ earlier filed application does not provide support for
certain claim limitations and, therefore, Appellants’ are not entitled to a
filing date that precedes Stahl’s filing date. Moreover, Appellants did not
Appeal 2009-012258
Application 11/604,992

4
The Examiner rejected claims 40 and 47 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Gerace, Stahl, and Schein (U.S. Patent No. 6,388,714 B1,
May 14, 2002). (Ans. 9-10.)

ISSUES
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issues:
Does Gerace render obvious the claim limitation a “plurality of television
related information sources” and a “plurality of delivery schemes”, as recited
in independent claim 34, and as similarly recited in independent claim 41?
Does Stahl render obvious the claim limitation of “automatically entering
scheduling information for an event personal to the user based on an event
personal to the user previously entered by the user”, as recited in
independent claim 34, and as similarly recited in independent claim 41?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 4-15) in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. For example, we disagree with Appellants’
assertions that the cited prior art does not render obvious the claim
limitations of “a plurality of television-related information sources,” “a

rebut the Examiner’s finding in their Appeal Brief. Accordingly, we
consider Stahl to be prior art.
Appeal 2009-012258
Application 11/604,992

5
plurality of delivery schemes,” and “providing the user with an opportunity
to enter scheduling information for an event personal to the user,” for the
reasons expressed by the Examiner. (See Ans. 4-15.)
Nonetheless, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding the recited limitation of “automatically entering
scheduling information for an event personal to the user based on an event
personal to the user previously entered by the user,” for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Stahl teaches or
suggests this claim limitation. (App. Br. 12.) In support of their assertion,
Appellants argue that “[t]here is no discussion in Stahl of automatically
entering any new scheduling information that is based on something
previously entered.” (Id. at 13.) Contrary to Appellants’ argument,
however, Stahl does disclose this limitation. Stahl discloses, for example,
the generation of an alarm when it receives news related to a stock that the
user had previously identified as a stock of interest. (Stahl 7:27-31.) More
specifically, in Stahl’s system, “a user creates a user profile which includes
requests for one or more customized sets of information.” (Id. at 3:14-15.)
The requested information may include financial information such as “news
related to a particular stock.” (Id. at 7:29.) If “the service provider receives
any news related to that stock, it remotely generates an audio or video
alarm.” (Id. at 7:30-31.) In other words, Stahl’s system automatically enters
new scheduling information to generate an alarm when it receives news
about a stock based on a user’s previously specified interest in that stock.
Accordingly, in light of Stahl’s disclosure, it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the step of “automatically entering
Appeal 2009-012258
Application 11/604,992

6
scheduling information for an event personal to the user based on an event
personal to the user previously entered by the user.”
For these reasons and the reasons expressed in the Examiner’s
Answer, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of all the claims.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 34-47.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 34-47 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke