Appeal No. 2001-1204
Application No. 08/971,021
the rule of the second user input, because this could be used to
‘.......change the organization process of planning, tracking and
management of work-team projects.’ (col. 7, ln. 6-8) as
Srinivasan discloses.”
Appellants argue (brief, page 6) that the examiner’s analogy
of Srinivasan’s teachings to the documents for initiating an
activity is misplaced because “Srinivasan at column 7, lines 51-
61 does not discuss defining in a ‘project plan’ two different
objects with one object that defines an activity for creating a
document and another object that defines a state of the document
that initiates the activity.” With respect to the teachings of
Ivanov, appellants argue (brief, page 7) that “the description in
Ivanov of ‘entering a workflow graph description’ adds little to
Srinivasan to render oblivious [sic, obvious] independent claims
1 and 16 with respect to defining objects that specify an
activity for creating a document and a document state for
initiating the activity.” In summary, appellants argue (brief,
page 7) that the combined teachings fail to teach “receiving a
first user input that indicates a first object that specifies an
activity for creating a document, and a second object that
specifies a state of the document for initiating the activity;
and receiving a second user input that indicates a plurality of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007