Appeal No. 96-2097
Application 08/037,983
meeting between the requester and the target (column 1, lines 35-
43). The apparatus compares the data for each target's calendar
for available and unavailable time periods within the times and
dates specified by the requester, and the comparison results in a
determination of at least one common date and time for all
specified targets within the specified time requirements of the
requester (column 1, lines 40-51).
McGaughey discloses an electronic calendaring system for
allowing a target to respond to an electronic meeting notice by
accepting or rejecting the invitation to attend the meeting based
on the target's calendar (column 4, lines 26-39).
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We reverse the rejection of appellants' claims 1-18 as
unpatentable over Hotaling in view of McGaughey under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. With respect to the only independent claims, method claim
1 and apparatus claim 8, neither reference discloses monitoring
or means for monitoring an electronic calendar maintained by a
target to detect the removal of a conflicting event from the
calendar, or scheduling or means for scheduling a meeting between
the requester and the target on the electronic calendar
maintained by the target in response to the detection of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007