Appeal No. 2006-1128
Application No. 10/215,877
BLCaseWorkList 62 retrieves a prioritized worklist for a user when a
worker starts a session with a workflow processing system according to
the present invention. The next case can be retrieved while
simultaneously processing the current case by user interaction through a
client/server GUI environment. Ordinarily a user will require a few minutes
to process the work item. During that interval BLCaseWorkList prefetches
the next case to the client workstation of the user. This limits the idle time
of employees between and during cases and increases the output of the
employee. [See col. 7 lines 55-65].
Thus, the argument that the references fail to show a queue of a plurality of cases
for resolution by a user is unpersuasive.
The appellants next argue that because an output has already been performed in
Caulfield, it cannot communicate a set of possible actions to a user [See Brief at p. 16].
To the contrary, we note that for each of the major actions indicated by Caulfield on pp.
10-13, there are several minor actions that may be taken in response to presentation of
those choices, referring to the user as the “acquirer” and further, interactive
communication in response to intermediate choices is shown at p. 15 lines 15-18.
Thus, the argument that because an output has already been performed in
Caulfield, it cannot communicate a set of possible actions to a user is unpersuasive.
None of the appellants’ arguments are found persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 13-18 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable as obvious over Caulfield in view of Lynn.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007