Appeal No. 2002-2180
Application No. 09/089,011
Claims 10, 11, and 24-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Conmy, Jones, and Tognazzini.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 12) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 20) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
19) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
In response to the rejection of claims 1, 17, and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Conmy, appellants argue that Conmy fails to disclose, as recited in
instant claim 1, receiving a response to the attendee notification message from an
attendee, “the response changing the time of the appointment.”
With respect to anticipation, “the first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). According
to the “Summary of Invention” provided in the Brief (at 2), “the attendee may generate a
response that changes the time of the appointment,” referring to the disclosure at page
7, line 1 to page 8, line 21.
The instant specification at page 7 teaches that the user of the system may enter
an attendee “profile” that includes, for example, how that attendee should be notified if
the user will be late for the appointment. The scheduling unit may store the information
in a scheduler database 350. The relevant specification section also teaches a number
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007