Appeal No. 2006-1753
Application No. 09/732,037
We also conclude that the examiner’s interpretation of “specification
coordinator” is reasonable. As the examiner indicates, even a web document
reasonably constitutes a “specification” since the underlying HTML code of the
document specifies the layout and structure of the page itself when rendered in a
web browser [see answer, page 15]. Since the documents in Meunier are web
documents,3 they each contain specifications that are “coordinated” by the
message originator. We further note that anything governed by rules reasonably
constitutes a “quality system specification” giving the term its broadest
reasonable interpretation.
The examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 2, 6, 8, and
13 is proper and is therefore sustained. Since appellants have not separately
argued the patentability of dependent claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 15, and 16 with
particularity, these claims fall with independent claims 2, 8, and 13. See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii).
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 9, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meunier in view of Eaton and
further in view of Hass. The examiner’s rejection essentially finds that the
combination of Meunier and Eaton teaches every claimed feature except that the
receiver of the second notification is a supervisor [answer, page 9]. The
examiner cites Hass as teaching a system for tracking and reporting receipt of an
3 See, e.g., Meunier, col. 3, lines 62 – col. 4, line 18.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007