Ex Parte Seok

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 18, 2008

10328243 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 18, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte YUN-HEE SEOK
_____________

Appeal 2008-2630
Application 10/328,243
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: September 18, 2008
_______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 8.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

Appeal 2008-2630
Application 10/328,243

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a schedule managing method for use
in a mobile terminal. See page 3 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A schedule managing method in a mobile communication
terminal having a display section for displaying an alarm and schedule
data and a memory for storing the schedule data, the method
comprising:
a schedule-setting step of setting schedule contents and time,
and storing the set schedule contents and time in the memory;
a display step of displaying the alarm along with the schedule
contents by operating the display section if the set schedule time
elapses; and
a step of stopping the alarm and deleting the schedule data
stored in a memory if a user's confirmation is confirmed during the
schedule display step.

REFERENCES
Monnes US 6,459,440 B1 Oct. 1, 2002
Lee US 2002/0119807 A1 Aug. 29, 2002

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE

Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. The Examiner’s rejection is on page 3 of the
Answer.
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee and Monnes. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 4
through 8 of the Answer.

Appeal 2008-2630
Application 10/328,243

3

Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
June 18, 2007), Reply Brief (received November 26, 2007) and the Answer
(mailed September 24, 2007) for the respective details thereof.

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 4 through 9 of the Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in
error. Appellant asserts, on pages 6 and 7 of the Brief, that the Examiner’s
rejection is in error as claim 1 recites stopping an alarm and deleting the
schedule data in a memory if a user’s confirmation is confirmed during the
scheduled display step, and that the combination of Lee and Monnes does
not teach this feature.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with the issue of whether the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of the Lee and Monnes
teaches stopping the alarm and deleting the memory, as recited in claim 1.1
In discussing the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, Appellant admits on page 9 of the Brief that the term “a memory”
in line 8 of claim 1 lacks antecedent basis. As the lack of antecedent basis
for this term is the basis for the Examiner’s rejection, there is no issue for us
to consider with respect to this rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second
paragraph.

1 We note that Appellant presents additional reasons why the rejection is
believed to be improper, however as this issue is dispositive of the case we
will only address this issue.
Appeal 2008-2630
Application 10/328,243

4

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent claim
1 recites “a step of stopping the alarm and deleting the schedule data stored
in a memory if a user's confirmation is confirmed during the schedule
display step.” Thus, the scope of method claim 1 includes that if a user
provides a confirmation during the step of displaying (the alarm along with
the schedule), the alarm is stopped and the scheduling data is deleted. The
Examiner finds that Lee teaches deleting an alarm and the schedule data
display stored in memory. Ans. 5, 9. We concur with this finding by the
Examiner, as paragraph 27 of Lee clearly discusses deleting the alarm and
schedule data in response to a user input. The Examiner also finds that Lee
teaches the deleting is in response to a user confirmation during a scheduled
display step. Ans. 5, 9. We disagree with this finding by the Examiner, as
we do not find that Lee teaches that deleting the schedule data is predicated
on a user confirmation during a step of displaying the alarm. Lee discusses
that the schedule data can be deleted as part of a user command to delete
schedule data (see para. 0022) or in conjunction with setting a schedule,
where overdue alarms that have been played earlier may be deleted (see
para. 0027). Monnes teaches displayed alarms (pop up windows with
information) however, Monnes does not teach deleting schedule data in
conjunction with confirming an alarm. Thus, regardless of whether Monnes’
teaching of the pop up windows (displayed alarms) is combined with Lee’s
device, the combination of references does not teach deleting the schedule
data if the user confirms the alarm, as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we
Appeal 2008-2630
Application 10/328,243

5

will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or claims 2 through 8
which depend upon claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
As Appellant has presented no issues identifying error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second
paragraph, we affirm this rejection.
Appellant’s contentions have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we Reverse
this rejection.
The decision of the Examiner 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

KIS

THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
333 EARLE OVINGTON BOULEVARD
SUITE 701
UNIONDALE, NY 11553