Appeal 2007-1443
Application 09/813,636
1 ISSUES
2 The issues pertinent to this appeal are
3 • Whether the art applied shows task entries comprised of defined types of
4 future actions which will generate a result (All claims);
5 • Whether the art applied shows mapping a relationship between each of the
6 task entries and resource entries (All claims);
7 • Whether the art applied shows processing the task and entries before entry of
8 any historical information (Claim 7);
9 • Whether generating a forward-looking report after the processing step and
10 related to the business model is a useful, concrete and tangible result and not
11 mere manipulation of an abstract idea (All claims); and
12 • Whether the Specification enables the claims (All claims).
13 In particular, the Appellant contends that, as to rejections over art, Morgan uses
14 historical information rather than future actions (Br. 6-7); Morgan maps
15 expenditures to activities rather than mapping future resources to future tasks (Br.
16 7); and that, with respect to claim 7, Morgan uses historical activity rather than
17 processing the resource entry and the task entry before entry of any historical
18 information (Br. 8). As to the rejections regarding patentable subject matter, the
19 Appellant contends that the claimed report is a useful, concrete and tangible result
20 (Br. 9), and as to enablement, that the original Specification p. 8, ll. 14-30 and
21 Figs. 2A&B are enabling.
22
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013