Appeal 2007-1695
Application 10/418,835
at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 15 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Huemoeller, and we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Huemoeller in view of Barnett for the same reasons discussed supra with
respect to independent claim 11.
Independent claim 16
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16 as
being as being unpatentable over the teachings of Huemoeller.
Appellants argue that Huemoeller fails to teach or suggest the
following limitations: (1) an organizational database including information
for expected attendees to a meeting, (2), an interface module for obtaining
active information from a portable device, and (3) a display module
including a meeting display for providing a visualization for managing the
meeting and a personal display for providing a visualization for the meeting
and accessing the information about the attendees (Br. 17).
We disagree. Specifically, we find Huemoeller teaches and/or
suggests an organizational database including information for expected
attendees to a meeting where the sports spectators correspond to the recited
“expected attendees” and where the scheduling of a game corresponds to the
recited “meeting,” as pointed out by the Examiner (See Answer 18). We
further find the listing of manager names and positions shown in Fig. 18
necessarily (i.e., inherently) requires data storage (i.e., a database) for
retrieval by the user.
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013