Appeal No. 2003-2055
Application No. 09/399,213
Choy 6,256,636 B1 Jul. 3, 2001
(filed Nov. 26, 1997)
Kauffman et al. (Kauffman) 6,260,040 B1 Jul. 10, 2001
(filed Jan. 5, 1998)
Claims 1, 12, 13, 25, and 37-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Choy and Li.
Claims 2-5, 14-17, and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Choy, Li, and Kauffman.
Claims 6-11, 18-24, and 30-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Choy, Li, and Antognini.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 13) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 19) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
18) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 24) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims
which stand rejected.
OPINION
In response to the section 103 rejection of claims 1, 12, 13, 25, and 37-42 as
being unpatentable over Choy and Li, appellant contends that the applied prior art fails
to teach or suggest all limitations of instant claim 1.
Although Li mentions a task identifier (Tid) only at col. 8, lines 27-28 and
shows it in Fig. 2 without explanation, Li neither teaches nor suggests
determining that an item is associated with the task, much less returning
the task identifier in response [to] such a determination, as required by the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007