Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
independent claims 11 and 19 and dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 22 which
appellant indicated as being grouped with independent claim 1. (See reply brief at
page 3.)
With respect to dependent claims 4, 13, and 20, appellant argues that the claims
require identification of a plurality of needs of the knowledge worker and that the
examiner has not identified a basis in Oku to support his rejection of the claims. (See
brief at page 10.) We agree with appellant that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case for a knowledge worker grid operable to identify a plurality of needs
associated with the knowledge worker, a process grid operable to identify a process
item associated with the selected need, and a data grid operable to identify a data item
associated with the selected need. The examiner maintains that Oku infers that the
needs, process items, data items , etc. are associated or cross-referenced with each
other and view the present state of a task as status information. (See answer at page
11.) We disagree with the examiner that the teachings of Oku teach, infer or clearly
suggest the invention as claimed with respect to the claimed grids. Therefore, we will
not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4, 13, and 20.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 14, and 21, appellant relies upon the same
argument as above. Again, we do not find that the examiner has established a prima
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007