Appeal No. 2004-2090
Application No. 09/540,391
“User’s Guide for Microsoft Project for Windows 95 and Windows 3.1”, Microsoft
Corporation (1995), pages 3-7, 88, 90, 91, 93, 95, 117, 141, 144. (User’s guide
to Project)
Pyron et al. (Pyron) “Using Microsoft Project 4 for Windows”, Que Corporation,
(1994).
Eisner, “Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management”, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1997), pages 153-76.
Kroenke “Database Processing Fundamentals, Design, and Implementation”
Seventh Edition, Prentice Hall (2000), pages 17, 18, 36-38, 116, 533-534.
Almási et al. (Almási) “Print Quality Analyzer Sponsored by QMS”, Florida
Technology Development Corporation, (April 22, 1999). Appendices C, D, F and
G.
Rejection at Issue
Claims 15, 16, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over User’s guide to Project in view of Pyron, Hsu, Buckley and Almási.
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
User’s guide to Project in view of Pyron and Eisner. Claims 17 and 28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over User’s guide to Project in
view of Pyron and Kroenke. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over User’s guide to Project in view of Pyron, Eisner and Kroenke.
Throughout the opinion we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007