Appeal 2007-1105
Application 09/731,912
1
2
3 35. The system of claim 1, further comprising a content item
4 edit merging device that merges a modified content item back into the
5 electronic document even if the template information or formatting
6 information of the electronic document was altered while the content
7 item was being modified.
8
9 36. The system of claim 1, further comprising a template edit
10 merging device that merges a modified item template back into the
11 electronic document even if the content of one or more items managed
12 by the item template was altered while the item template item was
13 being modified.
14
15 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
16 appeal is:
17 Giljum US 6,745,238 B1 June 1, 2004
18 (Filed Mar. 31, 2000)
19
20 Bay-Wei Chang (hereinafter Chang), In-Place Editing of Web Pages:
21 Sparrow Community-Shared Documents, World Wide Web conference
22 WWW7 , (April 1998).
23
24 The additional prior art cited by the Board is:
25 Skok US 2002/0091725 A1 July 11, 2002
26 (Filed May 12, 1998)
27
28 The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-16, 18-21, and 23-45
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Chang and Giljum.
30 Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter would not have
31 been obvious. More specifically, with respect to claims 1, 12, and 20,
32 Appellant further contends that the reference disclosures do not disclose or
33 suggest “storing editable template information or formatting information
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013