Application No. 08/947,032
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
It is the examiner’s position that Blandford “did not
explicitly teach, defining a condition for use in determining
whether an electronic document is to be archived. . .
electronically analyzing a document attribute of an electronic
document to determine whether the attribute satisfies the
condition. . .and triggering the automatic archiving process in
order to electronically archive the electronic document if the
document attribute satisfies the condition. . .” (answer-page 3).
Even though the examiner all but recognizes that Blandford
does not disclose even a single step of the claimed method, the
examiner still holds that it would have been obvious to modify
the teachings of Blandford to include the steps of defining a
condition for use in making a determination whether an electronic
document is to be archived, to electronically analyze a document
attribute to determine whether the attribute satisfies the
condition, and to trigger the automatic archiving process to
electronically archive the electronic document if the document
attribute satisfies the condition, i.e., obvious to perform a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007