Appeal No. 2001-1478
Application No. 08/853,539
at the time of the invention to have new triggering events added. Additionally, we find
that these labels are not art recognized types of events and the language of the claims
does not identify the detail, function or structure of these events. Therefore, we agree
with the examiner that other labeled events without specific detail thereto would have
been obvious additions to the combination with the open system.
With respect to dependent claims 6-11, 17-22, 30, 31, 41, and 45, appellants
argue that registering and unregistering is not taught or suggested by either Daniel or
Gough. (See brief at pages 7-8.) We disagree with appellants. The examiner relies
on the notification and interface with the user and the system. We agree with the
examiner that the GUI of Gough allows the user to register and unregister the interest,
for example, in a back-up being performed. This may be triggered by the use of the
clock at a scheduled time or by a separate event. Here, the language of dependent
claim 6 does not specify the type of the event. Therefore, we agree with the examiner
that Gough would have fairly suggested the registering and unregistering of an interest
in an event, and we will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6-11, 17-22, 30, 31,
41, and 45.
Appellants argue that the teachings of Daniel and Gough cannot be combined
in the manner suggested by the examiner. (See brief at page 8.) We disagree with
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007