Appeal No. 2004-0953 Page 5
Application No. 09/215,593
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, pages 3-6) is that Smith
discloses a system for delivering a portable document format to a
server. The examiner asserts that Smith does not disclose a
means with which the documents can be proofed. To overcome this
deficiency of Smith, the examiner turns to Plantz for a teaching
of a group publishing system in which an unlimited number of
authors and editors can perform word processing, document
assembling and editing functions on various portions of documents
in a project. The examiner also relies upon Plantz for a
teaching of access control for preventing unauthorized access,
and allows users to edit documents in the project. The examiner
adds (answer, page 4) that Plantz does not disclose assigning
version numbers to documents that have been modified. To
overcome this deficiency of Plantz, the examiner turns to Aoyama
for a system for displaying version information, as well as for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007