Appeal 2007-1443
Application 09/813,636
1 Claims 1-12 and 19-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as not
2 enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed subject
3 matter from the original disclosure.
4 The Examiner rejects the above claims because the Examiner finds the
5 Specification is unclear as to how a business model is formulated, tasks are
6 entered, or reports are generated with a model (Answer 63).
7 As our Findings of Fact (FF 13), supra, shows, a person skilled in the pertinent
8 art would know how to make and use the claimed invention without undue
9 experimentation, as demonstrated in the prior art. Accordingly we do not sustain
10 the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
11 paragraph, as not enabling a person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed
12 subject matter from the original disclosure.
13
14 Claims 1-12 and 19-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Morgan.14
15 We note that the Appellant argues these claims as a group. Accordingly, we
16 select claim 1 as representative of the group.
17 From the Findings of Fact, supra, we must conclude that
18 • The art applied shows task entries comprised of defined types of future
19 actions which will generate a result (All claims) (FF 5);
3 The Examiner also indicates that claim 6 is indefinite within the 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph rejection analysis (Answer 6). Such a characterization as being
indefinite is actually a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, which
the Examiner withdrew. Accordingly, we treat this as an ancillary remark by the
Examiner not associated with the 112, first paragraph rejection.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013