Appeal No. 2004-1533
Application 09/100,223
Appellant responds that the “could not be found”
designation in the claimed invention may be a temporary
designation that is reported until a schedule is located which is
different from the “NP” designation in Hotaling. Appellant also
responds that Hotaling fails to teach displaying alternate views
and that the “Official Notice” fails to remedy this deficiency in
Hotaling [reply brief, pages 2-7].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 5 for essentially the reasons argued by the
examiner. With respect to appellant’s argument that the “NP”
designation in Hotaling is different from displaying the invitees
whose schedules could not be found, we do not agree. As noted by
the examiner, the “NP” designation is given to an invitee who
does not participate in the notice system and, therefore, has no
schedule posted on the network. Thus, a designation of “NP” in
Figure 11 of Hotaling would indicate an invitee whose schedule
could not be found. Appellant’s argument that the designation
may be temporary in the claimed invention refers to a feature not
required by the claimed invention. With respect to the “Official
Notice” argument, appellant only asserts that the Official Notice
taken by the examiner does not overcome the deficiency in
Hotaling with respect to the “NP” designation. Appellant never
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007