Appeal No. 2004-1533
Application 09/100,223
claimed. The examiner takes “Official Notice” that it was well
known to display filtered data based on a selected viewing option
in the art of graphical user interfaces. The examiner finds that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to selectively display
the result options in Hotaling in the manner claimed [final
rejection, pages 4-6, incorporated into answer at page 3].
Appellant argues that the examiner has not established
that the selective display of three options feature is taught by
Hotaling. Appellant argues that Hotaling does not teach
presenting a view of a list of those whose schedule could not be
found. Appellant asserts that the “NP” designation in Hotaling
is not the same as a designation that indicates invitees whose
schedules could not be found. Thus, appellant argues that
Hotaling fails to teach a display of the third option recited in
claim 1. Finally, appellant argues that the examiner’s Official
Notice does not make up for this deficiency in Hotaling [brief,
pages 4-6].
The examiner responds that the “NP” designation in
Hotaling is, in fact, the same as a designation that the
invitee’s schedule is unavailable because they do not participate
in the meeting service [answer, page 4].
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007