Appeal No. 2004-2090
Application No. 09/540,391
summary tasks. Further, we find no suggestion in either Buckley or Almási2 to
modify the use of Microsoft project as the examiner asserts.
Buckley teaches a system for vending greeting cards. Though, as the
examiner asserts, Buckley teaches presenting “available products and their
desirable attributes and features” (see column 2, lines 19 and 20), we do not find
that Buckley is related to managing the release of a project as claimed nor do we
find that Buckley teaches defining a plurality of tasks and linking the tasks to
product features as is claimed in independent claims 15 and 26.
The document by Almási cited by the examiner appears to be several
appendices from a report generated by a team of engineers; the team appears to
include the examiner. The examiner asserts, on page 10 of the answer,
“MicroView used Microsoft Project to determine a planned timeline for developing
and building the system, as shown in the enclosure. Appendix G specifically
shows using Microsoft Project to enumerate the milestones of the
project, outline the various testing features and associates specific tasks and
features with the product, thereby linking the tasks, features, descriptions to the
product and to each other.” We fail to find that that the four appendices
presented by the examiner show linking tasks to product features as asserted by
the examiner. Appendix C “House of Quality” and D “Concept Screening Matrix”
(pages 4 and 5) appear to show features and a ranking of various requirements.
2 As stated supra Hsu is not prior art, thus we have not considered whether it
suggests the modification, as any findings related to Hsu are irrelevant.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007