Ex Parte Bonner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

13749624 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/749,624 01/24/2013 Matthew R. Bonner APLE.P0463 3434
73576 7590
APPLE INC. - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
BURGDORF, STEPHEN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW R. BONNER1
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—11, and 15—25. Claims 3,
4, and 12—14 have been canceled. Final Act. 1—2; App. Br. 2.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed Jan. 24, 2013; Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Nov. 15, 2016; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
Apr. 6, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Feb.
9, 2017 and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”) mailed Feb.
11,2016.
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
Appellant’s Invention
The invention generally relates to reminder applications for creating
and displaying weather-based reminders and, more specifically, machine
readable media and methods for providing reminders by a computing device.
A device, including a user interface, receives an input creating a reminder.
The reminder triggers when a weather condition for a location is satisfied.
Accordingly, the input includes a weather condition and a location. The
input also includes content to be presented along with the reminder. The
device checks (queries) a weather server to obtain weather data for the
location and, when the obtained weather data satisfies the weather condition,
presents the reminder with the reminder content on a display screen as an
alert. Spec. 2:2—3:26; Abstract.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A non-transitory machine readable medium of a
mobile device that comprises a user interface, at least one
processing unit, and a display screen, the non-transitory machine
readable medium storing a program for execution by the
processing unit, the program comprising sets of instructions for:
through the mobile device’s user interface, receiving input
to create a reminder that triggers on a weather condition for a
location, the input to create the reminder comprising content to
be presented along with the reminder,
based on the input, creating and storing the reminder;
repeatedly checking with a weather server to obtain
weather data for the location; and
when the obtained weather data satisfies the weather
condition, presenting the reminder with the reminder content on
the display screen as an alert.
2
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5—7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Buchanan et al. (US 2014/0114624 Al,
published Apr. 24, 2014 (filed Oct. 18, 2012)) (“Buchanan”) and Yokota
(US 2010/0026526 Al, published Feb. 4, 2010).
2. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Buchanan, Yokota, and Steinmark (US 2003/0001727 Al,
published Jan. 2, 2003).
3. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Buchanan, Yokota, and Doss et al. (US 2004/0064585 Al,
published Apr. 1, 2004) (“Doss”).
4. The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Buchanan, Yokota, and Sutcliffe (US
2006/0026277 Al, published Feb. 2, 2006).
5. The Examiner rejects claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Buchanan, Yokota, and Kelly et al. (US 6,823,263
Bl, issued Nov. 23, 2004) (“Kelly”).
6. The Examiner rejects claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Buchanan, Yokota, and Koskinen et al. (US
2004/0192311 Al, published Sept. 30, 2004) (“Koskinen”).
7. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over White (US 8,779,917 Bl, issued July
15, 2014 (filed Jan. 8, 2007)), Kelly, and Vanecek et al. (US 2010/0049815
Al, published Feb. 25, 2010) (“Vanecek”).
8. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over White, Kelly, Vanecek, and Steinmark.
3
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
9. The Examiner rejects claims 17, 18, 20, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Buchanan, Kelly, and White.
10. The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Buchanan, Kelly, White, and Stevens (US
6,404,880 Bl, issued June 11, 2002).
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, Appellant’s contentions, and the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issues before us follow:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Buchanan and Yokota collectively would have taught or suggested
“receiving input to create a reminder that triggers on a weather condition for
a location, the input to create the reminder comprising content to be
presented along with the reminder” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of White,
Kelly, and Vanecek collectively would have taught or suggested
a reminder editing tool for inputting a weather-based
reminder in terms of (i) a set of weather-based conditions
comprising a weather type and a location of the weather
condition, (ii) an operator that specifies whether all of the
weather-based conditions have to be met or only one of the
weather-based conditions has to be met before a notification
associated with the reminder is presented, and (iii) a set of
reminder content to be presented as part of the reminder
as recited in Appellant’s claim 10?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Buchanan, Kelly, and White collectively would have taught or suggested
providing a first user interface item for receiving a weather
condition and a location of the weather condition;
4
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
providing a second user interface item for receiving a
reminder content;
creating a weather-based reminder that uses the received
reminder content and the received weather condition and location
of the weather condition as a triggering condition; [and]
from a second application that executes on the computing
device, obtaining weather data for the location
as recited in Appellant’s claim 17?
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 5—7, and 9
Appellant argues independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5—7 and 9
together. Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to
dependent claims 5—7 and 9. See App. Br. 8—12. Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 as representative of Appellant’s arguments with respect
to claims 1, 5—7, and 9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as being obvious in view of Buchanan
and Yokota. See Final Act. 2—5; Ans. 29-31. We adopt as our own: (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—5), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 29—31) in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and we address specific findings, conclusions, and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Appellant contends Buchanan and Yokota do not teach or suggest the
disputed features of representative claim 1. See App. Br. 8—12; Reply Br. 2—
3. Specifically, Appellant contends Buchanan and Yokota do not “disclose
5
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
or suggest receiving, through a mobile device’s user interface, input to create
a reminder that triggers on a weather condition for a location, the input to
create the reminder including a set of reminder content to be presented along
with the reminder.” App. Br. 8. Appellant further contends “the Office
Action fails to provide a sufficient reason why it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Buchanan and
Yokota to arrive at the claimed invention and their combination is thus a
piecemeal, hindsight combination of references that is insufficient under
§ 103.” App. Br. 8; see App. Br. 9—12.
We agree with the Examiner and find a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the combination of Buchanan and Yokota would have
taught or at least suggested the disputed features of Appellant’s claim 1.
Appellant improperly attacks the references individually instead of
addressing the combination of Buchanan and Yokota as a whole, and fails to
appreciate the collective teachings of Buchanan and Yokota. See App. Br.
8—12; Reply Br. 2—3; cf. Ans. 29-31. The cited references must be read, not
in isolation, but for what each fairly teaches in combination with the prior art
as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references). Appellant’s
arguments do not take into account what the combination of Buchanan and
Yokota would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art —
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference;. .. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
6
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
With respect to Appellant’s first contention of error, Appellant
misconstrues the Examiner’s findings with respect to Buchanan. See App.
Br. 10. The Examiner finds (and we concur) that Buchanan describes a
device (mobile device), including an interface for providing input, that
displays weather-related reminders/alerts (see Buchanan || 61—62), as well
as additional content such as advertising or reminders when weather
conditions are met (see Buchanan | 59). See Final Act. 2—5; Ans. 29-31
(citing Buchanan || 30, 39-41, 42—59, 61—64; Figs. 1—5). Appellant does
not directly address these findings by the Examiner. See App. Br. 9-10;
Reply Br. 2—3.
Appellant is correct that Buchanan does not explicitly describe “users
creating reminders that trigger on a weather condition to present user-
specified content” (App. Br. 9); however, claim 1 recites no such feature and
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim
1 recites “receiving input to create a reminder,” including “content to be
presented along with the reminder.” Claim 1. Buchanan describes enabling
weather-based content (Fig. 4) and displaying weather-based alerts (Fig. 5;
1 62), as well as enabling and providing additional content such as weather-
based advertising and/or reminders (Fig. 4; | 59). Accordingly, we find
Buchanan would at least suggest “receiving input to create a reminder,”
including “content to be presented along with the reminder” as recited in
claim 1. Additionally, Yokota explicitly describes user created content to be
presented as reminders/alerts when certain conditions are met (see infra).
Appellant also misconstrues the Examiner’s findings with respect to
Yokota. See App. Br. 9—11; Reply Br. 2—3. The Examiner finds (and we
concur), Yokota describes creating and storing user reminder content
7
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
utilizing an interface and generating alerts/reminders when certain (location-
based) criteria are met. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 29-31 (citing Yokota Tflf 8, 9,
78, 79; Figs. 1C, ID, 5). We find Yokota teaches creating reminder content
using a device interface (see, e.g., Fig. 6) and displaying the reminder
content when conditions are met (i.e., a location is reached) (see Figs. 1C,
ID)—e.g., “Please buy milk at a Grocery Store” (Fig. 1C). Appellant does
not sufficiently explain why Yokota does not at least suggest user created
reminder content or “receiving input to create a reminder,” including
“content to be presented along with the reminder” (claim 1).
Appellant further contends the Examiner failed to provide a proper
rationale for combining Buchanan and Yokota (supra). We disagree. The
Examiner provides a rationale for combining Buchanan and Yokota—“to
allow the user to create and store customized alerts and reminders” (Final
Act. 5). See Final Act. 5. With respect to Appellant’s contention that the
Examiner has improperly relied on hindsight (App. Br. 7—12; Reply Br. 2—
3), we find the contention unpersuasive. “Any judgement on obviousness is
in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but
so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill. . . such a reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443
F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
based on explicit findings from the cited references as detailed above.
We note, however, that “it can be important to identify a reason that
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
combine the elements” of the references. KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). As discussed (supra), the Examiner provided a
rationale for combining Buchanan and Yokota.
8
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
We find that it would have been well within the skill of one skilled in
the art to combine such known techniques to provide instructions for
receiving (via a device interface) input to create a reminder—including
content to be presented along with the reminder—that triggers on meeting a
location condition as taught by Yokota, with instructions for receiving
(again, via a device interface) input to create a weather-based reminder or
alert—including additional enabled content—that triggers on a weather
condition for a location as taught by Buchanan. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417
(“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.”). We are not persuaded that
combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the
manner proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellant’s
invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 and dependent
claims 5—7 and 9, not separately argued with particularity {supra).
The 35 U.S. C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 10, 11, and 15
Claim 10 recites, in relevant part,
the GUI comprising:
a reminder editing tool for inputting a weather-based
reminder in terms of (i) a set of weather-based conditions
comprising a weather type and a location of the weather
9
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
condition, (ii) an operator that specifies whether all of the
weather-based conditions have to be met or only one of the
weather-based conditions has to be met before a notification
associated with the reminder is presented, and (iii) a set of
reminder content to be presented as part of the reminder
Claim 10.
The Examiner rejects independent claim 10 as obvious over White,
Kelly, and Vanecek. See Final Act. 15—17; Ans. 31—33. Appellant contends
that White, Kelly, and Vanecek
do not disclose or suggest a GUI including a reminder editing
tool for inputting a weather-based reminder including a set of
weather-based conditions and an operator that specifies whether
all, or only one, of the weather-based conditions has to be met
before a notification associated with the reminder is presented.
App. Br. 12; see App. Br. 12—16; Reply Br. 5—7. More specifically,
Appellant contends the references do not teach an editing tool that includes
input for “an operator that specifies whether all, or only one, of the weather-
based conditions have to be met before a notification associated with the
reminder is presented.” App. Br. 14.
The Examiner relies on a combination of Kelly and Vanecek to teach
the operator specifying whether all or less than all conditions must be met.
Final Act. 16—17; Ans. 32—33. We find that the combination of Kelly and
Vanecek, at best, suggests inputting multiple weather-based conditions and
triggering a reminder when the conditions are met (see Final Act. 16—17;
Ans. 32—33 (citing Kelly, col. 3,1. 62—col. 4,1. 48; col. 5,11. 7—29; col. 11,1.
9—col. 12,1. 3; Figs. 4a, 4b)) and utilizing Boolean operations to
generate/trigger an aggregation of alerts (see Final Act. 16—17; Ans. 32—33
(citing Vanecek || 70, 81—83)). The combination fails to suggest an
interface that allows input of weather conditions and the recited operator—
10
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
a reminder editing tool for inputting a weather-based
reminder in terms of (i) a set of weather-based conditions
comprising a weather type and a location of the weather
condition, (ii) an operator that specifies whether all of the
weather-based conditions have to be met or only one of the
weather-based conditions has to be met before a notification
associated with the reminder is presented, and (iii) a set of
reminder content to be presented as part of the reminder
Claim 10.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding White, Kelly, and Vanecek teach the operator
feature of Appellant’s claim 10. Dependent claims 11 and 15 depend on and
stand with independent claim 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 10, 11, and 15.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 17, 18, and 20
Appellant argues independent claim 17 and dependent claims 18 and
20 together. Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to
dependent claims 18 and 20. See App. Br. 17—21. Accordingly, we select
independent claim 17 as representative of Appellant’s arguments with
respect to claims 17, 18, and 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 17 recites, in relevant part,
providing a first user interface item for receiving a weather
condition and a location of the weather condition;
providing a second user interface item for receiving a
reminder content;
creating a weather-based reminder that uses the received
reminder content and the received weather condition and location
of the weather condition as a triggering condition; [and]
from a second application that executes on the computing
device, obtaining weather data for the location
11
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
Claim 17.
The Examiner rejects independent claim 17 as obvious over
Buchanan, Kelly, and White. See Final Act. 21—25; Ans. 34—37. We adopt
as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 21—25), and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 34—37) in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we address specific findings,
conclusions, and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellant contends Buchanan, Kelly, and White do not teach or
suggest the disputed features of representative claim 17. See App. Br. 17—
21; Reply Br. 8—9. Specifically, Appellant contends “Buchanan does not
disclose (1) a user interface item for selection of a specific location for a
weather condition, (2) a user interface item for generating reminder content,
and (3) receiving weather data from a second application of the computing
device.” App. Br. 19. Appellant further contends “neither Buchanan nor
Kelly disclose or suggest a first application executing on a device obtaining
weather condition data for a weather-based reminder from a second
application executing on the device because Buchanan presents a single
application for providing weather information and Kelly discloses an
external, server-based reminder system.” App. Br. 20. Appellant also
contends White fails to disclose different modules or applications executing
“as part of a weather-based reminder application executing on the device”
(App. Br. 20). As with claim 1 {supra), Appellant contends that the
Examiner utilized hindsight reasoning and provided an insufficient rationale
12
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
for combining Buchanan, Kelly, and White. See App. Br. 17—21; Reply Br.
8-9.
We agree with the Examiner and find a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the combination of Buchanan, Kelly, and White would
have taught or at least suggested the disputed features of Appellant’s
claim 17. As with claim 1 {supra), Appellant improperly attacks the
references individually instead of addressing the combination (of Buchanan,
Kelly, and White) as a whole. See App. Br. 19-21; Reply Br. 8—9; cf. Ans.
34—37. Appellant also (again) presents arguments that are not
commensurate with the scope of their claim {supra). Appellant contends
Kelly describes “an external, server-based reminder system” {supra', App.
Br. 20), but claim 17 simply requires a user interface executing on a
device—“a first application executing on the computing device . . .
providing . . . user interface item[s] for receiving” the conditions and
reminder content (claim 17).
The Examiner finds (and we concur) that Buchanan describes a device
that calculates an atmospheric (weather) model, determines weather
conditions from the model, and displays weather-related reminders/alerts, as
well as additional content such as advertising or reminders when weather
conditions are met. See Final Act. 21—23; Ans. 34—37 (citing Buchanan
1130, 39-41, 42—59, 61—64; Figs. 1—5). Appellant does not directly address
these findings by the Examiner. See App. Br. 19—21; Reply Br. 8—9.
The Examiner finds (and we concur), that Kelly describes an
application that provides personalized weather reports and reminders,
includes a user interface having entries (items) for receiving weather
conditions and locations of the weather conditions, as well as receiving
13
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
reminder content, and generates alerts/reminders when conditions are met.
See Final Act. 23—24; Ans. 34—37 (citing Kelly, col. 3,1. 62—col. 4,1. 48; col.
5.11. 7—29; col. 11,1. 9—col. 12,1. 3; Figs. 4a, 4b).
The Examiner finds (and we concur), that White describes providing
location-based weather notifications to a device utilizing software modules
resident in memory (albeit on an application server). See Final Act. 24; Ans.
34—37 (citing White, col. 1,1. 56-col. 2,1. 7; col. 7,1. 55—col. 8,1. 59; col.
11.11. 42—53; Figs. 2, 4). Appellant does not sufficiently explain why the
combination of Buchanan, Kelly, and White does not at least suggest each of
the disputed features of claim 17.
With respect to Appellant’s contention that the Examiner has
improperly relied on hindsight and not provided a proper rationale for the
combination {supra), we find these contentions unpersuasive for the same
reasons as claim 1 {supra), and sustain the Examiner’s rejection based on
explicit findings from the cited references as detailed above.
As with claim 1, we find that it would have been well within the skill
of one skilled in the art to combine such known techniques to provide an
application with a user interface for receiving input to create a weather
reminder—including weather conditions, corresponding locations, and
reminder content—as taught by Buchanan and White, with an application
that calculates a weather model and determines weather conditions from the
model to generate a weather-based reminder or alert that triggers on a
weather condition for a location as taught by Buchanan. Additionally, as
taught by White, it is known to combine modules (applications in memory of
a device). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We are not persuaded that combining
the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the manner
14
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellant’s
invention. Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162.
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 17. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 17 and dependent
claims 18 and 20, not separately argued with particularity {supra).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claim 19
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 19 as obvious over Buchanan,
Kelly, White, and Stevens. See Final Act. 27—28; Ans. 39-40. We adopt
and concur with the findings and reasoning of the Examiner. Id. We
address specific findings, conclusions, and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
Appellant contends Buchanan, Kelly, White, and Stevens do not teach
or suggest the disputed features of claim 19—namely “the notification
associated with the reminder is presented when the time data satisfies the
time condition or when the weather data satisfies the weather condition”
(claim 19). See App. Br. 23—24.
We agree with the Examiner and find a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the combination of Buchanan, Kelly, White, and Stevens
would have taught or at least suggested the disputed features of Appellant’s
claim 19. As previously discussed with respect to claim 17 {supra),
Buchanan, Kelly, and White describe providing a weather-based
alert/reminder when multiple conditions are met. Stevens describes
presenting an alert when certain weather conditions or a time condition are
met. See Final Act. 27—28; Ans. 39-40 (citing Stevens, col. 3,11. 37—48; col.
15
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
10,11. 9-34; col. 12,11. 2—14; Figs. 4, 5). Therefore, we find the
combination of Buchanan, Kelly, White, and Stevens would have at least
suggested a “notification associated with the reminder [being] presented
when the time data satisfies the time condition or when the weather data
satisfies the weather condition” (claim 19). Appellant does not sufficiently
explain why the combination of Buchanan, Kelly, White, and Stevens does
not at least suggest the disputed features of claim 19.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 21 and 22
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 22 as obvious over of
Buchanan, Yokota, and Sutcliffe. See Final Act. 11—12; Ans. 40. Appellant
contends that Buchanan, Yokota, and Sutcliffe do not teach a reminder with
reminder content including a graphical image. See App. Br. 24—25; Reply
Br. 3^4.
The Examiner relies on Sutcliffe to teach including a graphical image
(see Final Act. 11—12; Ans. 40); however, as pointed out by Appellant (see
App. Br. 24—25; Reply Br. 3—4), Sutcliffe does not teach the image as part of
a user-specified reminder/alert. Instead Sutcliffe describes a caller
specifying the image as a call notification. See Sutcliffe ^fl[ 7, 31, 35. In
other words, Sutcliffe’s device user receives a notification with an image
when called by the calling party, but the device user has no control over the
call notification image. Id. Accordingly, the combination fails to suggest a
reminder including image content specified by a user (in a device interface)
as required by Appellant’s claim 22.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Buchanan, Yokota, and Sutcliffe teach the
16
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
dispute image reminder feature of Appellant’s claim 22 and we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the claim.
Although not separately argued by Appellant (see App. Br. 12, 21,
24—25), claim 21 (which recites a media clip) includes similar limitations to
claim 22. For clarity and consistency of the record we also do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 over Buchanan, Yokota, and Sutcliffe
for the same reasons as claim 22.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claim 23
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 23 as obvious over Buchanan,
Yokota, and Kelly. See Final Act. 13—14; Ans. 40-41. We adopt and
concur with the findings and reasoning of the Examiner. Id. We address
specific findings, conclusions, and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellant contends Buchanan, Yokota, and Kelly do not teach or
suggest “the reminder triggers . . . based on a weather type, a location of the
weather, and a duration of the weather that are from the received input”
(claim 23). See App. Br. 25—26; Reply Br. 4—5. In particular, Appellant
argues Kelly does not teach the duration condition. Id.
We agree with the Examiner and find a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the combination of Buchanan, Yokota, and Kelly would
have taught or at least suggested the disputed duration condition of
Appellant’s claim 23. As previously discussed with respect to claim 1
{supra), Buchanan and Yokota describe providing a weather-based
alert/reminder when multiple conditions are met. Similarly, as previously
discussed with respect to claim 17 {supra), Kelly describes providing a
weather-based reminder when multiple conditions are met. As explained by
the Examiner, Kelly also describes a duration condition for a weather-based
17
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
reminder. See Final Act. 13—14; Ans. 40-41 (citing Kelly, col. 3,1. 62—col.
4,1. 48; col. 5,11. 7—29; Figs. 4a, 4b). Therefore, we find the combination of
Buchanan, Yokota, and Kelly would have at least suggested the disputed
duration condition feature of Appellant’s claim 23. Appellant does not
sufficiently explain why the combination of Buchanan, Yokota, and Kelly
does not at least suggest the duration condition.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claim 25
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 25 as obvious over Buchanan,
Kelly, and White. See Final Act. 26—27; Ans. 41 42. We adopt and concur
with the findings and reasoning of the Examiner. Id. We address specific
findings, conclusions, and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellant contends Buchanan, Kelly, and White do not teach or
suggest “receiving a duration of the weather condition, wherein creating the
weather-based reminder comprises using the received weather condition, the
location of the weather condition, and the duration of the weather condition
as a triggering condition” (claim 25). See App. Br. 27—28; Reply Br. 9—10.
In particular, as with claim 23 {supra), Appellant argues Kelly does not
teach the duration condition. Id.
For the same reasons as claim 23 {supra), we agree with the Examiner
and find a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the combination
of Buchanan, Kelly, and White would have taught or at least suggested the
disputed duration condition of Appellant’s claim 25.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections of Claims 2, 8, and 24
With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2,8,
and 24, Appellant has not provided separate detailed arguments with respect
to these claims. See App. Br. 7—28. Claims 2, 8, and 24 depend from claim
18
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
1, which we previously discussed and sustained (supra). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 8, and 24 for the same reasons
as claim 1 (supra).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections of Claim 16
With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claim 16,
although Appellant did not separately address this rejection (see App. Br. 7—
28), the Examiner has not established on this record that the additional cited
Steinmark reference overcomes or cures the aforementioned deficiency of
the White, Kelly, and Vanecek combination. Dependent claim 16 depends
from claim 10, which we previously discussed and did not sustain (supra).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 16.
CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
2, 5-9, 17-20, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10,
11, 15, 16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5—9, 17—20, and
23—25. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, 15, 16, 21,
and 22.
19
Appeal 2017-007246
Application 13/749,624
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
20