Appeal 2007-1443
Application 09/813,636
1 • The art applied shows mapping a relationship between each of the task
2 entries and resource entries (All claims) (FF8); and
3 • The art applied shows processing the task and entries before entry of any
4 historical information (Claim 7) (FF 13).
5 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 and 19-22
6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Morgan.
7
8 Claims 23 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Morgan.
9 We note that it appears unusual for claims, such as claims 23 and 24, that each
10 refers back to another claim, to be rejected for lack of novelty, whereas the claim
11 they refer to is rejected because of obviousness. Claims 23 and 24, although both
12 refer back to claim 1, are not strictly dependent claims, because, being directed to a
13 computer readable medium and to a system, each capable of implementing, but not
14 affirmatively executing, the method of claim 1, they do not fully incorporate the
15 subject matter of claim 1, much as a product by process claim does not incorporate
16 the actual process execution within its scope. In particular, their structure would
17 be fully capable of executing the procedure of claim 1 with or without historical
18 information, and, more to the point, the use or lack thereof of historical
19 information is not part of the structural scope of these claims. We further note that
20 the Appellant has not separately argued these claims.
21 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 23 and 24 under
22 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Morgan.
23
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013