Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920
Regarding claims 21 and 41, we find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive (Br. 14). We note the Examiner has provided only a single
paragraph in support of the rejection of numerous dependent claims,
including claims 21 and 41 (see Answer 5, 12). The Examiner has provided
a citation to “recording specific dates” at column 23, lines 60-62 and column
15, lines 42-45 of Ivanov, but has not provided a specific citation directed to
deferring promotion of the content item. Upon review of the sections cited
by the Examiner, and the entirety of Ivanov and Klibaner, we find Ivanov
and Kilbaner fail to teach or reasonably suggest “after approval of the
content item, deferring promotion of the content item until a predetermined
date identified in the content management record,” as required by the
language of claim 21 and the equivalent language of claim 41. While
Ivanov discloses various dates in the content management record (e.g., col.
11, lines 45-50; col. 12, lines 53-58; col. 14, lines 14-18; col. 15, lines 40-
44), we find nothing in Ivanov that fairly discloses deferring promotion of
the content item until a particular date after the content item has been
approved.
We note that claims 22 and 42 depend from claims 21 and 41,
respectively. Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejections of claims
21 and 41, we will also reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 22 and
42 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Kilbaner.
Regarding claims 25 and 44, we find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive (Br. 15). We note again that the Examiner has provided only a
single paragraph in support of the rejection of numerous dependent claims,
including claims 25 and 44 (Answer 5, 12). The Examiner has provided a
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013