Appeal 2007-1695
Application 10/418,835
as required by the language of the claim. Furthermore, Huemoeller’s
address book does not indicate whether listed individuals have made
purchases or whether these individuals have actually been contacted (See
Huemoeller, Fig. 10, col. 8, ll. 7-34). Therefore, we conclude that each
element of the claim is not fairly taught or suggested by Huemoeller.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and associated
dependent claims 2-4 as being unpatentable over Huemoeller. Significantly,
we note that the limitation of “overlay information” that includes both sales
information and purchaser information is not found in remaining
independent claims 6, 11, and 16, as discussed infra.
Independent claim 6
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 6 as
being as being unpatentable over the teachings of Huemoeller.
Appellants argue that Huemoeller fails to teach or suggest the
following limitations: (1) a method for visualizing information for managing
a meeting, (2) obtaining information for attendees of a meeting, (3)
obtaining active information from the attendees of the meeting, and (4)
providing a visualization for managing the meeting (Br. 15-16).
We note again that claim 6 does not positively recite a computer or
machine for performing the steps of the method. Indeed, we find claim 6
merely recites three steps of obtaining various types of “information”
followed by a step of processing the obtained information to provide a
“visualization” (claim 6). When we examine claim 6 to identify non-
obvious structural and functional relationships between the descriptive
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013