Appeal No. 2006-1753
Application No. 09/732,037
updates the specification coordinator (i.e., message originator) of the
acknowledgement. In view of Eaton, the examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
Meunier’s document change notification system to electronically update the
message originator and electronically alert users that have not acknowledged
sent messages. According to the examiner, such a modification would efficiently
alert users regarding unread messages via reminder messages and provide
message originators with tracking and status information [answer, pages 4 and
5].
In addition to the differences noted above, the examiner adds that the
claims differ from Meunier in calling for the document to be a specification
document of a quality system [answer, page 6]. The examiner, however, notes
that Meunier discloses that any document can be monitored for changes and
users notified of such changes. The examiner further notes that a specification is
a document that outlines an organization and the products or services offered.
The examiner then concludes that because an agent can monitor documents for
changes, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the
invention to extend such monitoring and notification regarding document changes
to specification documents since they are merely types of documents [answer,
pages 6 and 7].
Appellants argue that the examiner failed to provide objective evidence or
a proper source of motivation for modifying Meunier with Eaton, but rather merely
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007