Appeal No. 96-2097
Application 08/037,983
removal of the conflicting event from the electronic calendar. 2
It has not been established that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to add these features to the above prior art combination.
Motivation or suggestion in the prior art to add these features
to the prior art relied on by the examiner has not been
established. The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in
the manner suggested by the examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Whereas the rejection of the only independent claims, claims
1 and 8, over the applied prior art is reversed, the rejection of
dependent claims 2-7 and 9-18 over that art is reversed.
REVERSED
2Although the claimed invention does not cause the removal
of a conflicting event on the target's calendar as noted by
appellants, we note that a statement in the examiner's answer to
the effect that at col. 4, lines 18-48 and at FIGS. 6A and 6B
McGaughey teaches removing a conflicting event on the calendar
maintained by the target is seen to have no actual support in the
aforementioned parts of the reference.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007