Ex Parte Lee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 2009

10287197 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WOO-JIN LEE and YONG-NAM KIM
____________

Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: October 29, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a method for managing a periodically repeated
schedule in a mobile communications terminal. Specifically, a timer
compares a current time with an alarm time and, if they match, the timer
outputs data indicating the alarm time to the controller. If the registered
schedule information is “repeated” schedule information (i.e., an annual
event), the timer compares the current time with only the month, day, and
hour information of the alarm time set when the schedule information was
registered. But if the registered schedule information is “general” schedule
information (i.e., general appointments), the timer performs such a
comparison using the year, month, day, and hour information.1 Claim 1 is
illustrative with the key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for managing a schedule in a mobile communication
terminal, comprising the steps of:

a) registering schedule information according to a predetermined type;

b) determining whether the registered schedule information exists;

c) determining whether a current time matches an alarm generation
time for the registered schedule information, and based upon the
determination:

determining whether the current time matches month, day and hour
data of the alarm generation time set when the schedule information was
registered, if the registered schedule information's type is repeated schedule
information; and

determining whether the current time matches year, month, day and
hour data of the alarm generation time set when the schedule information

1 See generally Spec. 4-5, 9:10-24; Fig. 1.
Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

3
was registered, if the registered schedule information's type is general
schedule information;

d) generating a pre-set alarm if the current time matches the alarm
generation time;

e) searching for a list of previously stored telephone numbers, and
displaying the registered schedule information with more than one telephone
number related to a name if the name corresponding to the registered
schedule information exists among names registered in the list of telephone
numbers; and

f) dialing a telephone number selected by the user among the
displayed telephone numbers.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Sado US 4,253,088 Feb. 24, 1981
Shih US 5,764,597 June 9, 1998
Tognazzini US 5,790,974 Aug. 4, 1998
Fukuda US 6,477,365 B2 Nov. 5, 2002
(filed Feb. 9, 2001)
Murray US 6,484,033 B2 Nov. 19, 2002
(filed Dec. 4, 2000)
Janz US 6,819,922 B1 Nov. 16, 2004
(filed Aug. 14, 2000)

1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Janz, Sado, and Murray. Ans. 4-13.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Janz, Sado, Murray, and Fukuda. Ans. 13-14.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Janz, Sado, Murray, and Tognazzini. Ans. 14-16.
Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

4
4. The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Janz, Sado, Murray, and Shih. Ans. 16-17.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer2 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER JANZ, SADO, AND MURRAY
Regarding independent claims 1 and 3, the Examiner finds that Janz
discloses managing a schedule in a mobile communication terminal
including (1) determining whether a current time matches an alarm
generation time for registered schedule information, and, based on that
determination, (2) determining whether the current time matches that of the
alarm generation time set when either repeated or general schedule
information is registered as claimed. Ans. 4, 5, 7, and 8. The Examiner
equates Janz’s entering an activity with registering (1) a specific date as
corresponding to a “general” schedule, and (2) multiple dates as
corresponding to a “repeated” schedule as claimed. Ans. 17-18.
The Examiner finds that Janz discloses all the claimed subject matter
except for determining whether the entered planned activity already exists,
and relies on Sado for this teaching. Ans. 5, 6, 8, and 9. Additionally, the

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed September
13, 2007; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 13, 2007; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed February 13, 2008.
Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

5
Examiner further relies on Murray for teaching that information for an
activity is indicated in terms of a time and date (i.e., year, month, day, and
hour data), and the prior art teaches comparing this data to the current time
in the manner claimed. Ans. 6, 7, 9, 10, and 18.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the
two recited separate determination steps:
(1) determining whether the current time matches an alarm generation
time for the registered schedule information, and
(2) based on this first determination, determining whether:
(a) the current time matches month, day, and hour data of the
alarm generation time set when the schedule information was
registered if the registered schedule information is repeated schedule
information; and
(b) the current time matches year, month, day, and hour data of
the alarm generation time set when the schedule information was
registered if the registered schedule information is general schedule
information. App. Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 2-3; emphasis added.
Appellants emphasize that the prior art fails to teach or suggest two
separate determinations, with the second determination based on the type of
registered schedule information. Reply Br. 2. Appellants add that the prior
art likewise fails to teach or suggest comparing the respective sets of data
categories associated with the repeated and general schedule information,
respectively. Reply Br. 2.

Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

6
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 103, have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 and 3 by finding that Janz, Sado, and Murray collectively
teach or suggest:
(1) determining whether a current time matches an alarm generation
time for the registered schedule information, and
(2) based on this first determination, determining whether:
(a) the current time matches month, day, and hour data of the
alarm generation time set when the schedule information was
registered if the registered schedule information is repeated schedule
information; and
(b) the current time matches year, month, day, and hour data of
the alarm generation time set when the schedule information was
registered if the registered schedule information is general schedule
information?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
Janz
1. Janz discloses a personal digital assistant (PDA) 12 that is used in
conjunction with a vehicle interface. The PDA comprises a database 16 that
stores calendar or scheduling information. Janz, col. 3, ll. 33-51; Fig. 1.
Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

7
2. Using the PDA’s input/output device 20, different planned
activities or appointments can be entered for specific times (or time ranges)
on specific dates (or date ranges). Janz, col. 3, ll. 50-54; Fig. 1.
3. An alarm event occurs a predetermined amount of time before the
scheduled activity to remind the user that the time for the activity is
approaching. Janz, col. 3, ll. 54-57.

Sado
4. Sado discloses an electronic scheduler that compares schedule
information to be newly stored with already-stored schedule information.
An alarm is activated when the result of this comparison is within a
predetermined range to prevent overlapping storage of the schedule
information. Sado, col. 1, ll. 30-36; col. 2, ll. 54-62; Fig. 1.

Murray
5. Murray discloses a wireless communication system with location-
based schedule management functions. The system includes a wireless
communication device 32 with a device event management application 108
that (1) compares the value of the current time 114 to event information
stored in the device’s memory 100 (see Fig. 3), and (2) sends an application
response 118 when there is a match. Murray, col. 7, ll. 35-65; Figs. 1-3.
6. As shown in Figure 9, the wireless communication device
compares (1) the current date 135 to the event date 137, and (2) current time
114 to the event time 132 to determine when to activate an alert. Murray,
col. 11, l. 44 − col. 12, l. 24; Fig. 9.
Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

8
7. Figure 10 shows a display of information for an event reminder
208 used by the wireless communication device. The display indicates,
among other things, the event’s start time 232 (12:00 PM), end time 234
(2:00 PM), and date 209 (Sept. 21, 2000). Murray, col. 12, ll. 27-55; Fig.
10.
8. The date 209 of the event includes a month 210, day 212, and year
214 (e.g., Sept. 21, 2000). Murray, col. 12, ll. 35-37; Fig. 10.

Appellants’ Disclosure
9. “The repeated schedule means a schedule which is repeated on the
same date every year. For example, the repeated schedule corresponds to a
birthday, a memorial day, a wedding anniversary, etc.” Spec. 4:18-20.
10. “The general schedule means a one-time scheduled event such as
general appointments, except for the repeated schedule.” Spec. 4:20-22.
11. “[B]ecause the controller 10 compares the current time with only
the month, day and hour data of the set alarm time, the repeated schedule
information can be provided on the same data [sic] every year if the month,
day and hour data is stored.” Spec 9:17-20.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). If the
Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Appellants to
overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness
Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

9
is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that independent claim 1 calls for two separate
determinations:
(1) determining whether a current time matches an alarm generation
time for the registered schedule information, and
(2) based on this first determination, determining whether:
(a) the current time matches month, day, and hour data of the
alarm generation time set when the schedule information was
registered if the registered schedule information is repeated schedule
information; and
(b) the current time matches year, month, day, and hour data of
the alarm generation time set when the schedule information was
registered if the registered schedule information is general schedule
information.
That is, claim 1 requires first determining whether a current time
matches an alarm generation time, and then, based on this determination,
determining whether the current time matches particular data categories
(i.e., (1) month, day, and hour data, or (2) year, month, day, and hour data))
depending on the type of registered schedule information (i.e., “repeated” or
“general”).

Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

10
In the Specification, Appellants define a “repeated schedule” as “a
schedule which is repeated on the same date every year” (e.g., birthdays,
anniversaries, etc.). FF 9. Events corresponding to a “repeated schedule”
are therefore limited to annual events under this definition. See id.
Appellants likewise define a “general schedule” as “a one-time scheduled
event such as general appointments, except for the repeated schedule.”
FF 10.
These distinctions are critical, for claim 1 calls for a different
comparison depending on which type of schedule information (i.e.,
“general” or “repeated”) is associated with the alarm generation time. That
is, for annual events (i.e., “repeated” schedule information), the claim
requires limiting the comparison of the current time to the alarm generation
time’s month, day, and hour data.3 But for all other events, the claim
requires this comparison to also include the year data.
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner takes the position that (1) an
activity entered in Janz’s system with (1) a specific date corresponds to
“general” schedule information, and (2) specific dates (i.e., multiple dates)
corresponds to “repeated” schedule information. Ans. 17-18.
Leaving aside the fact that the Examiner’s interpretation of “repeated”
schedule information does not fully comport with Appellants’ narrower
definition of the term (i.e., annual events) (FF 9), we still fail to see how the

3 Accord FF 11 (citing Appellants’ Specification noting that since the current
time is compared with only the month, day, and hour data of the set alarm
time for repeated schedule information, “the information can be provided on
the same data [sic] every year if the month, day and hour data is stored”)
(emphasis added).
Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

11
cited prior art teaches or suggests the different comparisons recited in claim
1—distinct comparisons that depend, in part, on the type of schedule
information as noted above.
Janz teaches (1) entering different activities or appointments for
specific times (or time ranges) on specific dates (or date ranges) in a PDA,
and (2) activating an alarm event a predetermined amount of time before the
activity. FF 1-3. Even assuming that the user entered annual events in
Janz’s PDA for the “specific dates” noted above, Janz still does not teach or
suggest that comparisons of such “repeated” schedule information are
performed any differently than comparisons involving other events (i.e.,
“general” schedule information), let alone that different data categories are
used depending on the type of schedule information as claimed. See id.
Neither Sado nor Murray cures this deficiency. Sado merely
compares schedule information that is intended to be stored with already-
stored schedule information, and activates an alarm when the result of this
comparison is within a predetermined range. FF 4. This functionality,
however, falls well short of teaching or suggesting the multiple comparisons
recited in claim 1.
Murray likewise falls short in this regard. Murray’s system compares
the current time and date to a stored time and date associated with an event
to activate a corresponding alert (FF 5-6). Murray’s display indicates,
among other things, the event’s start time (12:00 PM), end time (2:00 PM),
and date (Sept. 21, 2000) (FF 7)—a date that includes month, day, and year
data (FF 8).

Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

12
But despite the use of year, month, day, and hour data in Murray’s
comparison (FF 7-8), there is still nothing in the cited prior art to suggest the
two distinct determinations claimed, where one of these determinations is
based on the type of scheduling information as claimed. Like Janz, Murray
simply fails to teach or suggest that comparisons of “repeated” schedule
information are performed any differently than comparisons involving other
events (i.e., “general” schedule information), let alone that different data
categories are used depending on the type of schedule information as
claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claim 3
which recites commensurate limitations. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims, and dependent claims 5, 7, 8, and 11-
13 for similar reasons.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Regarding the obviousness rejections of (1) claims 2 and 4 over Janz,
Sado, Murray, and Fukuda (Ans. 13-14); (2) claim 9 over Janz, Sado,
Murray, and Tognazzini (Ans. 14-16); (3) claim 10 over Janz, Sado, Murray,
and Shih (Ans. 16-17), since we find that the additional cited references do
not cure the deficiencies noted above regarding the independent claims, we
will not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4, 9, and 10 for
similar reasons.

Appeal 2009-002280
Application 10/287,197

13
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5
and 7-13 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-13 is reversed.

REVERSED

pgc

THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville NY 11747