Appeal 2007-0257
Application 10/047,123
(Butler Abstract.) Skinner teaches the active updating of data objects
of interest to the users over a network. (Skinner, col. 2, Summary.)
7. Appellant contends that the combination of Butler in view of Skinner
does not teach or suggest all of applicant’s claim limitations. (Br. 13.)
As a first example, Appellant indicates that in Butler each user does
not have a client device, as claimed. We note the contrary, as in
Butler, as described in column 8, line 54 ff, each user uses a personal
computer or similar device to communicate with the host computer
over a network. This personal computer can be read on the claimed
client device. See the definition of client device in the specification,
page 11.
8. Appellant next contends that Butler fails to teach “receiving from
client devices digital asset records representing digital assets.”
Examiner does point to a specific recitation in Butler to satisfy the
limitation of a digital asset (Answer 13 bottom.) However, the
limitation of the digital asset records representing digital assets is not
so clearly shown in the reference portions cited in the Answer or the
Final Rejection. A careful reading of Butler indicates that being
granted temporary control of the display and the editing by the host
user can indeed be read on the general concept of permissions.
However no teaching is found in Butler indicating the claimed digital
asset record representing the digital asset.
9. Appellant’s claim requires a permission field in the digital asset
record, and a permission field in the user record. (See Claim 1 above.)
In the claim, the ability to edit is dependent on the contents of both
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013