Ex Parte Edd et al - Page 3


               Appeal 2007-0990                                                                       
               Application 09/871,920                                                                 
                     (b) processing the content item through a plurality of stages of a               
               content management process, including updating the content management                  
               information stored in the content management record during each stage of               
               the content management process, wherein the plurality of stages includes at            
               least one review stage during which approval of the content item is obtained;          
               and                                                                                    
                     (c) promoting the content item as a result of the content management             
               process such that the content item is user accessible from the content-                
               controlled database, including updating the content management information             
               stored in the content management record to indicate that the content item has          
               been promoted.                                                                         

                                         THE REFERENCES                                               
               Ivanov   US 5,706,452   Jan. 6, 1998                                                   
               Klibaner   US 2002/0161597 A1  Oct. 31, 2002                                           
                                                               (filed Jun. 27, 2001)                  

                                          THE REJECTION                                               
                     1. Claims 1-50 and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                 
                       being unpatentable over the teachings of Ivanov in view of                     
                       Klibaner.                                                                      

                     Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we               
               make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details                 
               thereof.                                                                               

                                             ANALYSIS                                                 
                     At the outset, we find both Appellants and the Examiner have given               
               incomplete consideration to the teaching value of Ivanov and Klibaner.  We             


                                                  3                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013