Appeal No. 2003-1654 Page 2
Application No. 09/439,310
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to business methods for assuring quality
services (specification, page 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the
appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art reference in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Eisner, Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management, pp. 46-53, 58-60
and 147-176 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1997).
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory
subject matter.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
appellants regard as their invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Eisner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007