Appeal 2007-1695
Application 10/418,835
1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1863-64 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Thus, when the prior art describes all the claimed structural and
functional relationships between the descriptive material and the substrate,
but the prior art describes a different descriptive material than the claim,
then the descriptive material is nonfunctional and will not be given any
patentable weight. That is, such a scenario presents no new and unobvious
functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate.
Here, because there is no well defined substrate (i.e., a computer, or
computer-readable medium), we find the claim merely recites manipulations
of data in the abstract (See our discussion of claim 6 with respect to 35
U.S.C. ¶ 101, supra). Therefore, we find no new and unobvious functional
relationship between the descriptive material (i.e., information) and a
substrate in claim 6.
We further find Huemoeller teaches and/or suggests argued
limitations (1) and (4), i.e., a method for visualizing information (see e.g.,
the new appointment description displayed in the window shown in Fig. 4)
for managing a meeting (e.g., a start time and an end time, as shown in Fig.
4). We also find Huemoeller teaches and/or suggests argued limitations (2)
and (3), i.e., obtaining active information associated with attendees of the
meeting, as shown in Figs. 10-13. (See also Huemoeller, col. 8, lines 7-44).
Therefore, for all of the aforementioned reasons, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 6 as being unpatentable over the
teachings of Huemoeller.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013