Appeal 2007-0039
Application 09/799,413
Rejection of claims 8 and 30
Appellant argues that Ferrel allows only the publisher to create a
story, whereas claim 8 requires a user to create stories by selecting
components and also to add new components to the database for others to
use (Br. 11-12). Initially, we observe that the claim only requires user data
selected by the user and uploaded by the user to be stored in the database.
There is no requirement for the uploaded data to be used by other users in
creating stories. We also disagree with Appellant that only the publishers
may create and store a story where the users retrieve the completed stories
(id.). As discussed above, we do not see the publishers of Ferrel to be
different than the claimed users since publishers use the database containing
content objects for creating stories. Therefore, we find the Examiner’s
position reading the subject matter of claim 8 on the database available to
the end users for storing the user created contents, even if created by the
publishers, to be reasonable (FF 5-7). Appellant provides no additional
arguments for claim 30, which includes a similar limitation, and relies on the
arguments made for the patentability of claim 8 (Br. 18). Therefore, for the
same reasons discussed here, we find that the teachings of Ferrel suggest the
subject matter of claims 8 and 30.
Rejection of claims 13 and 35
Appellant argues that, unlike claim 13, Ferrel teaches that publishers
create complete stories on a workstation and store that completed story to a
network (Br. 12-13). The Examiner refers to Ferrel’s dynamic editing
functionality and argues that using the editing function, the publisher can
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013