Appeal No. 96-2190
Application 08/287,758
fall together [brief, page 8]. We take claim 1 as
representative.
Appellant argues against the Examiner’s interpretation of
the APA in the final rejection of claim 1. The Examiner in
the final rejection states that “the admitted prior art of the
disclosure teaches all features claimed except for the
specific time frame and the differing types of data
presented.” [Answer, page 2].
The Examiner then asserts that “The calculation of the
overtime and even the time remaining can and is done by hand.”
(Answer, page 2). Appellant argues that the Examiner has not
shown where and how the APA teaches this calculation [brief,
page 13]. The Examiner points to the second paragraph on page
1 of the specification for this admission (APA). However, we
find that the identified part of the specification is not a
part of the prior art. The identified paragraph, i.e., “When,
... , then each employee must take a troublesome calculation
to confirm ... remaining required working hours within the
determined period.” [Specification, page 1], is misinterpreted
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007