Appeal 2007-1361
Application 09/681,573
answer to a second query preferably defines the path where 'public'
document contents 20 are to be stored in file system 120. The answer to a
third query preferably defines a mapped drive to identify the path of the
document storage." (Id.)
Because the combined teachings of ATS and Bendik generally would
have suggested disseminating electronic media to a DMS, and Bendik
discloses defining rules for storage in the DMS, we find that the combined
teachings of the references specifically would have suggested disseminating
the electronic media to the DMS in accordance with the latter's rules for
storage. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 8 and of claims 9-11
and 13-15, which fall therewith.
V. CLAIM 12
The Examiner admits, "ATS fails to specifically disclose . . . rout[ing]
the electronic data file to a converter configured to substantially
simultaneously convert the electronic data file into at least two of a number
of publication formats." (Answer 11.) He asserts, however, "Alam discloses
. . . rout[ing] the electronic data file to a converter configured to
substantially simultaneously convert the electronic data file into at least two
of a number of publication formats (Figure 6: Here, a PDF and an Output
Format Document are publication formats.)" (Id.) The Appellants argue
that "all the elements of the present claims are not present in the references."
(Br. 15.) Therefore, the issue is whether Alam simultaneously transforms
the content of electronic media into more than one format.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013