Appeal No. 2001-1204
Application No. 08/971,021
acknowledges (answer, page 4) that Srinivasan fails to explicitly
disclose the claimed “second user input indicating a plurality of
rules for defining a relationship between the first object and
the second object.” The examiner nevertheless concludes (answer,
page 4) that “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the second
user indicated a plurality of rules for defining the relationship
between the first and second object, because Srinivasan disclose
‘...... task leaders to provide change updates such as changes in
the task duration or estimated completion date.....’ (col. 7, ln.
56-58), here the rules were the ‘change in updates’, and the
constraint was the date by which the task was to be completed by
such that--the activity and the document are duals of each
other.” The examiner likewise acknowledges (answer, page 4) that
Srinivasan fails to disclose the claimed “compiling, in the
memory, a grammar representing the work process.” Based upon
Ivanov’s disclosure (column 7, lines 46 and 47) of “entering a
workflow graph description 40 into the system,” the examiner
states (answer, page 4) that “it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to have combined the teachings of Srinivasan and Ivanov and have
had the grammar representing the work process and generated from
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007