Appeal No. 2006-1753
Application No. 09/732,037
perform its intended function – namely to electronically communicate document
changes to intended recipients. For at least these reasons and since the art is
predictable, we see no reason why the skilled artisan would not reasonably
expect success if such an automatic supervisory notification feature was
provided in Meunier’s system.
In short, the examiner’s combination of the teachings of Hass with
Meunier and Eaton is reasonable. The examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 9, and
14 is proper and therefore sustained.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner's rejections with respect to
all claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
2-6, 8-11, and 13-16 is affirmed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007