Appeal 2007-0014
Application 10/202,227
and techniques to be used, none being specifically described"). It is not clear
where the specification discloses modifying "automatically."
Appellant disputes the Examiner's finding that Koski teaches, at column 3,
line 54 through column 4, line 12, modifying the selected document to correspond
to the inputted features to create an electronic document to be used in creating a
new electronic document. It is argued that "views" in Koski are structures in the
database to facilitate searching, not documents dependent upon input from the user
and the generation of a view is not dependent upon input from the user (Br. 5). It
is argued that Koski creates a new case only when no case has been selected in
accordance with the inputted attributes and, if a record is selected, it is not
modified (Br. 6).
The Examiner responds that "[t]he best matching case or cases (documents)
in the view are retrieved from the case base and formatting (modifying) the case
(document) retrieved from the case base and presenting the output case as action
corresponding to the incident (input features) (col. 3, line 54 - col. 4, line 12)"
(Answer 7).
Appellant replies that the views in Koski are user independent and
formatting a view of the case is void of any relationship to the inputted description
(Reply Br. 5).
We agree with Appellant that there is no teaching or suggestion in Koski of
"modifying . . . the selected document [which substantially matches the inputted
features] to correspond to the inputted features." (The Examiner finds that the
limitation "automatically," omitted as indicated by ellipses, is taught by
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013