Appeal 2007-1695
Application 10/418,835
We also agree with the Examiner that Huemoeller reasonably suggests
an interface module for obtaining active information from a portable device
(see Huemoeller col. 4, l. 5, i.e., “laptop computers”). As discussed supra
with respect to independent claim 11, we find the recited term “active
information” broadly but reasonably reads on any information, as the term
“active information” is not defined within the Specification, nor is a
definition for this term argued by Appellants in the Briefs. We again find
that accessing information from a laptop computer (i.e., a portable device)
necessarily (i.e., inherently) requires software (i.e., an interface module) to
retrieve the information from computer storage. Finally, we agree with the
Examiner that Huemoeller teaches and/or suggests a display module
including a meeting display (see e.g., the new appointment description
displayed in the window shown in Fig. 4) for providing a visualization for
managing a meeting (e.g., a start time and an end time, as shown in Fig. 4),
and a personal display for providing a visualization for the meeting and
accessing information about the attendees, as shown in Figs. 10-13. (See
also associated description, Huemoeller, col. 8, lines 7-44). Because we
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Huemoeller.
Dependent claims 18-20
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 18-20. In the absence of
a separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those claims stand
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013