Appeal 2007-1443
Application 09/813,636
1 REMARKS
2 The Appellant also contends that the Examiner’s objection against claims 2, 8-
3 11, 23 and 24 is improper (Br. 10). However, this relates to a petitionable matter
4 and not to an appealable matter. See In re Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356-57, 179
5 USPQ 46, 51 (CCPA 1973) and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566,
6 568 (CCPA 1967). See also MPEP § 1002.02(c), item 3(a) and § 1201. Thus, the
7 relief sought by the Appellants would have been properly presented by a petition to
8 the Commissioner under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 instead of by appeal to this Board.
9 Accordingly, we will not further consider this issue.
10 The Examiner is urged to consider searching user manuals of any of the
11 popular project management software packages as pertinent sources of prior art,
12 should prosecution continue following this appeal. Project management software
13 routinely creates forward looking reports based on the mapping of prospective
14 activities to resources and are generally not tied to a general ledger.
15
16 DECISION
17 To summarize, our decision is as follows:
18 • The rejection of claims 1-12 and 19-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
19 directed to non-statutory subject matter is sustained.
20 • The rejection of claims 1-12 and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
21 paragraph, as not enabling a person skilled in the pertinent art to make and
22 use the claimed subject matter from the original disclosure is not sustained.
23 • The rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
24 Morgan is sustained.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013