Appeal No. 96-2745
Application No. 08/114,979
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
"Additionally, when determining obviousness, the claimed
invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally
recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With regard to the rejection of all claims, the
Examiner relies on the IBM reference for "teaching that a
calendar and scheduler can be displayed concurrently and be
receptive to input" (answer at page 6). The Examiner relies
on page 4383 of the IBM reference where it states "Thus, other
calendar functions are available directly from the monthly
display, and one does not have to leave the monthly display to
choose other calendar functions." Appellants argue on page 8
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007