Appeal No. 96-1317
Application 08/250,302
Claims 7, 11 through 13, 17, 18 and 20 to 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon TIME LINE in view of
PackRat.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the Brief and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We reverse.
Independent claims 7 and 13 are respective method and apparatus versions of
appellants’ disclosed textual information display feature, whereas the subject matter of
method claim 20 relates to appellants’ disclosed vertical busy bar feature.
If we assume for the sake of argument that it would have been proper within
35 U.S.C. § 103 from an artisan’s perspective to have combined the teachings of PackRat
and Time Line, we conclude that the result would not be the subject matter set forth in
independent claims 7 and 13 on appeal as well as independent claim 20. This reasoning
of combinability would be based upon the project management approaches discussed in
each reference. The combined features appear to us, according to the reasoning of the
examiner, to have been based upon picking and choosing bits and pieces of the
respective claimed features from both references. We are unable to conclude and are not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007