Appeal 2006-2496
Application 09/944,696
reverse order], but it says nothing about why to do it” (Br. 8) and that the
operation taught by “ls” is “unsuitable for displaying the versions of the
workflow in reverse order” (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner disagrees, and
asserts that the plan versions are known to be stored in directories (Answer,
15). As noted by the Examiner, Applicant admits that plan versions are
stored in directory folders in the prior art (Specification, 10). Since “ls”
teaches displaying a list of files in reverse order, we find that it was suitable
for displaying versions of a workflow or plan in reverse order. We also
agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to display plans in reverse order to permit the user to view the
plan in an alternate order, such as oldest version first or most recent version
first.
Regarding the third stated rejection of claims 12, 17, 31, 40 and 43,
since these claims contain substantially identical subject matter, we will treat
claim 12 as representative. Appellants admit that Kumashiro teaches Gantt
charts (flow-type diagrams), but argue that “edits to Gantt charts or flow
diagrams will be highlighted with a distinctive indicator such as a tag having
a number associated with the frequency of changes made to a particular
element of a Gantt chart or flow diagram” (Br. 8). However, as correctly
noted by the Examiner (Answer, 15-16), the numerous limitations argued by
Appellants do not appear in the rejected claims, which merely state that the
display comprises a Gantt chart or flow diagram.
Regarding the fourth and final stated rejection of claim 29, Appellants
argue that the combination of Boden, Nauckhoff, Word and Garofalakis fails
to teach or suggest the limitations of independent claim 28 (Br. 9).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013