Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
Additionally, we agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to monitor access to nonexecutable
files if this was a major activity such as in a database searching system as taught by
Oku. Therefore, appellant’s argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 9, 15, and 24.
With respect to dependent claims 17 and 26-28, appellant argues that Oku
discloses “depending matters” rather than “pending” matters. We agree with appellant
that there is an inconsistency in the teachings of Oku. Appellant argues that the
reminder function of Srinivasan fails to teach or suggest a “pending module” or a
“pending queue” as recited in appellant’s claims. (See brief at page 13.) We disagree
with appellant. We find no language in claim 17 that details the function of the pending
module or pending queue beyond identifying the unavailable knowledge item and
storing information on the unavailable knowledge item. The examiner maintains that
the remind module for pending tasks of Srinivasan in combination with the tracking
system of Barritz would have suggested to skilled artisans to monitor queries also. We
find that we need not reach the examiner’s level of detail in the rejection since the
claims do not recite what is pending. With this said we do agree with the examiner
concerning the automatic reminders for uncompleted tasks as taught by Srinivasan as
being pending matter and keeping track of them in a queue.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007