Appeal 2006-3144
Application 09/778,281
creating , implementing and managing projects.” (Tatham, col. 6, ll. 53-57,
and Fig. 3D).
We also find no error in the Examiner’s establishment (Answer 4) of
proper motivation for adding the conference time scheduling features of
Maurille to the group conferencing teachings of Tatham. As pointed out by
the Examiner (Answer 13), Appellants’ arguments (Br. 10) do not attack the
Examiner’s assertion of obviousness to the ordinarily skilled artisan of
adding a time scheduling application to Tatham’s private office suite of
applications. Instead, Appellants’ arguments rely on those previously made
regarding the alleged deficiency of Tatham in disclosing a template of
customizable web pages, which arguments we found to be unpersuasive for
all of the reasons discussed supra.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome by any convincing
arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection,
based on the combination of Tatham and Maurille, of independent claims 1
and 8, as well as dependent claims 2, 7, 9, and 12 not separately argued by
Appellants, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of separately argued dependent claims 6 and 10 based on the
combination of Tatham and Maurille, we sustain this rejection as well. We
find no error in the Examiner’s position (Answer 15-16) that the disclosure
of Maurille describes the collaboration of web servers as claimed. We are
further of the opinion that the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize and
appreciate that the suite of applications provided in the private office suite of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013