Appeal 2007-1361
Application 09/681,573
unauthorized access, or providing quick access to documents would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine a DMS
with ATS' teaching of creating documents in the PDF. Such a combination,
moreover, would have suggested disseminating a formatted data file to a
DMS. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-4 and 7,
which fall therewith.
III. CLAIMS 5 AND 6
When the patentability of dependent claims is not argued separately,
the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, the Appellants do
not separately argue the patentability of claim 6, which depends from and is
subject to the same ground of rejection as claim 5. We select claim 5 as the
sole claim on which to decide the appeal of the two claims.
The Examiner makes the following findings.
ATS further discloses the method wherein the step of
publishing further comprises the step of transmitting the data
file to a system wherein the data file are configured to allow the
system to automatically assign a coded filename, a storage
location, and a file identifier to the data file (page 5, number 7:
Here, the file is saved to the hard drive in a document
management system under a filename).
(Answer 5.) The Appellants argue, "claim 5 calls for, in part, transmitting
the data file to the document management system. That is, the accessed data
file, from which the data file in at least one publication format is published,
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013