Appeal No. 2004-2090
Application No. 09/540,391
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in
the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, and for
the reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 15
through 17 and 23 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We first consider the rejection of claims 15, 16, 26 and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over User’s guide to Project in view of Pyron, Hsu, Buckley and
Almási. At the outset, we note that Hsu was issued on Feb 12, 2002 and filed on
August 9, 2000, as such it is not prior art under any section of 35 U.S.C. §102.
Nonetheless, as it appears from the examiner’s rejection, on pages 7-10 of the
answer, the examiner is relying on Hsu, Buckley and Almási the prove the same
issue, and thus we will consider the rejection based upon User’s guide to Project,
Pyron, Buckley and Almási.
Appellant admits, on pages 3 and 4 of the brief that “Microsoft Project
imposes no control over the text entered for summary tasks, and is therefore
unable to prevent a user from entering text for summary tasks that, rather then
referring to a larger process made up of the tasks grouped under them, instead
refers to product features to which the tasks grouped together relate.” Appellant
argues, on pages 5 and 6 of the brief, that the reference to Hsu, Buckley and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007