Appeal No. 2001-1204
Application No. 08/971,021
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 13) and the
answer (paper number 14) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
3, 5, 6, 8 through 11, 13 through 16, 18 and 20.
Srinivasan discloses an Auto Multi-Project Server
20 (Figures 1 and 2) to implement an organizational process of
planning, tracking and managing work-team projects (column 7,
lines 6 through 8). The Auto Multi-Project Server 20 is part of
an overall Auto Multi-Project Management Process (Figure 1). A
project team member (e.g., a program manager) is one of the
designated users of the server 20 (column 6, line 64 through
column 7, line 7).
The examiner equates (answer, page 3) the priority ranking
of projects made by the program manager (column 7, lines 52
through 54) and the change updates provided by task leaders
(column 7, lines 57 through 61) to the claimed first user input,
the claimed first object specifying an activity for creating a
document and the claimed second object for specifying a state of
the document for initiating the activity. The examiner
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007