Appeal 2006-3144
Application 09/778,281
Tatham, such as the collaboration tool illustrated in Tatham’s Figure 3D,
would be provided by servers acting in collaboration with each other.
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 3-5 and 11 in which the predetermined default values’
teaching of Sluiman is added to the combination of Tatham and Maurille.
Initially, Appellants’ arguments (Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4-5) to the contrary
notwithstanding, we fail to see why Tatham’s workgroup creation disclosure
(col. 4, ll. 55-65) in which the user identification of workgroup members,
applications to be used, project scope, etc. would not be considered to
correspond to the claimed “gathering type,” “occasion,” or “theme.” It
follows, then, that the application of Sluiman’s customized default value
teaching to the system of Tatham as modified by Maurille, and we find no
persuasive arguments from Appellants attacking the proposed combination,
would result in the invention as set forth in appealed claims 3-5 and 11.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013