Appeal No. 96-1928
Application 07/504,679
reference. The examiner's view as to this column 1 portion of
Vincent, as expressed at page 12 of this answer as well as
pages 2 and 3 of the supplemental answer dated November 30,
1995, asserts that Vincent explicitly states that switching
the month screen to the day screen to see the missing
information is not efficient. The examiner's reasoning in
both answers appears to assert that Vincent fails to
completely solve the problem by failing to address the
situation when the length of the note information, apparently
in the month display screen in Figure 1 of Vincent, is longer
than the note display field as a basis for asserting that
Heckel's teachings would have remedied this deficiency.
We do not agree with this reasoning process of the
examiner.
Indeed, column 1 background assessment identified by the
examiner in Vincent is Vincent's assessment of the prior art
to him, whereupon the disclosure in Vincent's patent appears
to us to be directed at curing any known problems to him. We
do not regard Vincent's discussion in the written description
portion of his patent as indicating that any deficiencies
remain or any unsolved problems remain among those he has
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007