Appeal No. 2003-0360
Application No. 08/947,032
documents, we find nothing in common between the instant claimed
invention and that disclosed by Blandford. The examiner has not
convincingly pointed to anything within Blandford, or within the
common knowledge of artisans, that would lead to the conclusion
that it would have been obvious to modify Blandford in any manner
to result in the “defining,” “analyzing,” and “triggering” steps
set forth in the instant claims.
In response to appellants’ arguments, the examiner rather
broadly points to a “. . .check being made whether archived or
not archived in col. 14, lines 37-47 suggests a condition. . .
(answer-page 9) and to an implicit suggestion of “. . .the step
of electronically analyzing a document attribute of an electronic
document to determine if the document attribute satisfies the
archiving condition in col. 1, lines 59-62 and col. 4, lines 25-
32. A flag in fig. 18 (520) with the flag not set suggests an
archiving. . .” (answer-page 10).
The examiner appears to be “reaching” to find claimed
subject matter that is simply not in Blandford. If a check as to
whether a document is archived or not is the claimed “condition”
and the date of the document is the claimed “attribute,” then, in
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007