Appeal No. 2003-2055
Application No. 09/399,213
claims. In fact, Li does not even describe how that task identifier is to be
used, but only mentions it in passing.
(Brief at 7.)
Appellant argues that claim 1 requires receiving a request to identify a task to
which an item is associated, determining whether that item is associated with the task,
and returning an identifier of the task in response to such a determination. The
combination of Choy and Li “would merely assign to the workbaskets of Choy the task
identifiers of Li.” (Id.)
In response to appellant’s arguments, the examiner refers (Answer at 9) back to
the statement of the rejection in the Answer. According to the rejection, Choy discloses
receiving a request and sending a result to the request. Choy also discloses searching,
navigating, checking-out, and other operations for a request of an item. Choy is
deemed to be silent on an identification of the task. The examiner finds that Li,
however, discloses a task identifier in a workflow management. Li also teaches
associating an item and a task, and a display of items associated with a task. (Answer
at 4-5.)
After careful consideration of the examiner’s findings, the references, and, in
particular, the portions of the references relied upon by the instant rejection, we agree
with appellant that a prima facie case for obviousness has not been established.
Although claim 1 is drafted in broad terms, the rejection insufficiently addresses the
particular limitations of the claim. The references fail to teach or suggest receiving a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007