Appeal No. 96-1928
Application 07/504,679
chosen to provide solutions to his own assessment of the prior
art to him. The examiner's argumentative approach appears to
be a cloak for prohibited hindsight analysis. We are in basic
agreement therefore with appellants' earlier noted assessment
of Vincent's teachings and showings alone. We reach a similar
conclusion with respect to the examiner's statement of the
rejection of the other independent claims in other pages of
the principal examiner's answer.
The principal focus of Vincent is calendaring, not
generic data structures, as in Heckel, even though Vincent
does teach data structures for annotating daily and monthly
calendaring of events. Even if Vincent were found by the
artisan to have been deficient in some way or would have found
it desirable to modify Vincent in some way, a more simplified
and direct approach would have been more obvious to us than
the hindsight analysis proffered by the examiner to rely upon
Heckel's teachings and suggestions. If, as asserted by the
examiner, Vincent fails to completely solve problems stated by
him with respect to the prior art to him by failing to address
the situation when the length of the note on the month
calendar is longer than the note display field, and even if
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007