Appeal No. 96-1317
Application 08/250,302
persuaded by the examiner’s reasoning that the monthly calendar shown in the upper-left
portion of the middle Figure of page 414 of PackRat would have been modified by the
additional showings and teachings in this reference, further in view of TIME LINE’s
showings, to yield a display of textual information comprising at least a start time and an
event summary for any event schedule on any day and to have done so on the monthly
scheduling calendar itself. PackRat also shows in addition to the monthly calendar, a
weekly calendar as well as a day schedule. But there is no showing or teaching in this
reference, even as modified by TIME LINE, which would have persuaded us that it would
have been obvious to have modified or combined features to present textual information of
the noted two types on the monthly calendar itself. Appellants’ claimed invention is a
straightforward view of discreet features that may be found in each reference.
Furthermore, as to the editing feature of claims 7 and 13, it does not appear to us from our
understanding of both references that editing would occur without opening any other
additional display panel. We are not persuaded by the examiner’s reasoning to correlate
teachings of both references to the rather straightforward features cited in independent
claims 7 and 13 on appeal.
Turning lastly to the subject matter of independent claim 20 on appeal, the two-
dimensional pictorial representation of the monthly scheduling calendar shown in the large
figure in the middle of page 414 of PackRat is identical to that which has been set forth in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007