Appeal No. 96-3056
Application No. 08/173,287
in Baber, such as the display of subwindow 76, is associated
with the attendee, the meeting site and/or an element of
equipment rather than with the designated calendar event such
as date. In other words, any information selected in Baber
brings up a window that associates that information with
further information, but it does not associate the selected
information with a designated calendar event.
In summary, even though the scope of the invention as
recited in independent claims 1 and 8 is relatively broad, the
examiner’s broad interpretation of the associating step is
inconsistent with the logical meaning of that step and is not
disclosed within Baber in a manner necessary to support a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 as anticipated by
the disclosure of Baber. Since the remaining claims depend
from
either claim 1 or claim 8, we also do not sustain the
rejection of any of these claims as anticipated by the
disclosure of Baber.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-16 is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007