Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920
Regarding claim 15, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing (Br.
12). We note the Examiner has pointed to Ivanov at column 27, lines 15-20
as teaching a revision process in which a rejected proposal can be modified
and resubmitted (see Answer 11). We agree with the Examiner that this post
rejection stage is a development stage since it changes the content of the
document and “formats” it for inclusion in the database.
Regarding claims 16 and 39, we find Appellants’ arguments
unavailing (Br. 12). We agree with the Examiner that the resubmission of a
revised content item includes returning the content item to an earlier stage in
the content management process; specifically, returning to the first review
stage (see Answer 11).
Regarding claim 19, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing (Br.
13). Appellants argue that claim 19 is not directed to a “web server in the
abstract,” but rather refines the concept of promotion (id.). However, we
have found supra that the combination of Ivanov and Klibaner teaches
and/or suggests promotion of a content item for publishing on a website
server (see discussion of claim 1 supra).
Regarding claim 23, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing (Br.
15). As discussed supra, Ivanov discloses a plurality of “promotions” as
each stage of the review process is complete. Once a stage of the review
process is completed, the content item is promoted and the next set of
reviewers can review the document (Ivanov, col. 8, ll. 20-59). Since all
reviews are combined to form one master review (i.e., grade), we find each
successive review stage can reasonably be interpreted as an “update review
process,” as claimed.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013