Appeal No. 2003-0360
Application No. 08/947,032
taught by an applied reference, but the hurdle would clearly be
much greater than if something of the claimed invention had been
taught by the applied reference. The examiner in the instant
case is attempting to show that each and every step of the
claimed method would have been obvious, within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. §103, i.e., the claimed subject matter as a whole would
have been obvious, without one of those steps being explicitly
taught by the applied reference. We are not convinced.
Blandford discloses an electronic diary which does have an
archiving function but that archiving function is to archive a
diary entry and that diary entry may only be archived once (see
column 14, lines 29-30). There is also a determination in
Blandford as to whether an entry has been archived. But we agree
with appellants that “. . .the disclosure of the ability to
archive an entry once, and of the step of determining if an entry
has been previously archived is not equivalent to defining an
archiving condition for use in determining whether an electronic
document is to be archived” (reply brief-page 2). Neither is the
determination of whether a process has been executed, as in
Blandford, equivalent to defining a condition for the execution
of that process.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007