Appeal No. 96-3144
Application 08/322,111
estimates of time are responsive to the effects of changes in the
composite multitask load of the multitasking workstation; and
driving the display to notify a user of the multitasking workstation of
the revised estimates after their generation.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Yamaji et al. (Yamaji) 4,495,562 Jan. 22, 1985
Haynes et al. (Haynes) 4,457,772 Jul. 03, 1984
David Halliday et al., "FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS", Third Edition, Extended,
published 1988 by John Wiley & Sons (N. Y), pp. 12-23.
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Yamaji in view of Haynes, further in view of Halliday.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
2 3
appellant, we make reference to the brief and answer for the details thereto.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us we disagree with the Examiner that
claims 1-9 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-9.
2Appellant filed an appeal brief, November 16, 1995, (Paper No. 29). We will refer to this appeal
brief as simply the brief.
3The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's Answer mailed February 28, 1996,
(Paper No. 30). We will refer to this examiner's answer as simply the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007