Appeal No. 96-2745
Application No. 08/114,979
suggestion of the required limitation.
The Examiner appears to also argue that the
combination of Sharp and Norwood teaches the recited claim
limitation (pages 15 and 16 of the answer). However, we agree
with Appellants that "in all other parts of the Examiner's
Answer, as well as the Final Office Action, the Examiner has
correctly (emphasis added) admitted that 'Sharp does not
display both the calendar and the scheduler concurrently' and
that Norwood is cited merely for teaching a pen-based computer
system." (reply brief at page 3). We will not sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
The remaining claims on appeal also contain the
above limitations discussed in regard to claim 1 and thereby,
we will not sustain the rejection as to these claims.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1, 3,
6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17 and 20 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007