Appeal No. 2004-2090
Application No. 09/540,391
Appendix F “ Project Plan” and G “Assembly and Testing Plan” show Gantt
charts depicting project tasks and time lines for completion. However, we find no
correlation between the tasks in Appendices F & G and the Features of
Appendices C & D. Thus, we do not find that Almási provides the suggestion to
associate product features with tasks as claimed in independent claims 15 and
26. For the forging reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
15, 16, 26 and 27.
We next consider the rejection of dependent claims 17 and 28. The
rejection is set forth on pages 14 and 15 of the answer. The rejection of these
claims builds on the rejection of claims 15 and 26 by adding Kroenke to teach
linking features in a relational database with the use of database keys. The
examiner does not assert, nor do we find that Kroenke teaches associating
product features with tasks as claimed. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed
supra with respect to claims 15 and 26, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 17 and 28.
We next consider the rejection of claims 23 and 24. The examiner’s
rejection is set forth on pages 11 through 13 of the answer. The statement of the
rejection relies upon the same references to the User’s guide to Project and
Pyron applied to claim 15 and includes Eisner. The examiner states on pages 12
and 13 of the answer
The combination of Microsoft Project/Project 4 [Project user’s guide and
Pyron] does not specifically disclose that the GUI task list/product feature
list of the Gantt chart format could be modified to track quality assurance
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007