Unfortunately the obviousness test at this point is moot. Once the PTO signs off on it, overturning obviousness is very difficult. The prior art is a better w

Unfortunately the obviousness test at this point is moot. Once the PTO signs off on it, overturning obviousness is very difficult. The prior art is a better way to go, especially if it is obvious the same technology as the patent. BTW, what is the prior art on the two clearest ones (from the title -- which obviously doesn't mean the claims line up, but I suspect they do): Meeting requets and group scheduling on a mobile device prior to 1997? Common namespace for long and short filenames prior to 1993?