Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920
rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of
Klibaner for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Independent claims 32, 50, and 59
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 32,
50, and 59 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Klibaner.
We note that Appellants rely on the same arguments previously
presented for claim 1, and present an additional argument that each of
independent claims 32, 50, and 59 recite a program for promoting the
content item as a result of the content management process and updating the
content management record (Br. 9-10). However, we find the systems
disclosed by both Ivanov and Klibaner are computer systems. We further
find the argued promotion/updating steps are automatically performed by
Ivanov’s workflow manager program (col. 7, ll. 11-18; see also col. 15, ll.
34-38) that resides on “server computer 24” (col. 7, ll. 44-45). Therefore,
we conclude the Examiner has met the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness for independent claims 32, 50, and 59. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 32, 50, and 59 as
being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Klibaner.
Dependent claims 33-38 and 40
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 33-38 and 40. In the
absence of a separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those
claims stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013