Appeal No. 2002-2180
Application No. 09/089,011
way change the time of the meeting. Instead, in Conmy, when the invitee declines the
invitation, this is merely sent to the coordinator who then must make decisions about
how to reschedule the meeting or to not include the invitee in the meeting.” (Brief at 5.)
We agree with the examiner’s finding (Answer at 11) that Conmy discloses, at
least at the noted sections in columns 9, 11, and 12, that an attendee may propose
rescheduling of a meeting, as by proposing “another event time,” in responding to an
attendee notification message. In view of the proper interpretation of the recitation of
claim 32 that is in controversy, we conclude that the claim requires no more than what is
described by Conmy.
We thus sustain the Section 102 rejection of claim 32. Appellants have not
provided separate arguments in support of claim 1 or 17. We therefore sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 17, and 32. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Appellants note limitations of instant claims 30 and 31 (Brief at 7) that the
examiner has not shown to be disclosed by Conmy. In the statement of the rejection
(Answer at 3-4), the examiner does not allege, let alone show, where Conmy may
disclose receiving user location information, and determination of a user being late for
an appointment based on the location information. We thus cannot sustain the Section
102 rejection of claim 30 or 31.
With respect to the rejection of claims 2-9, 12-16, 18-23, 29, and 33-35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Conmy and Jones, we are in substantial
agreement with appellants’ position set out in the Brief. The Jones reference is
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007