Appeal 2007-0039
Application 09/799,413
edit the existing stories (Answer 14). We agree with the Examiner that the
dynamic title synthesis of Ferrel adds flexibility to the system by allowing
editing of the created story without the need for modifying the title design
(FF 4). Appellant provides no additional arguments for claim 35, which
includes a similar limitation, and relies on the arguments made for the
patentability of claim 13 (Br. 18). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed
here, we find that the teachings of Ferrel suggest the subject matter of claims
13 and 35.
Rejection of claims 14 and 36
Appellant argues that Ferrel does not teach or suggest the step of
editing a story by logging onto the website to add or modify the components
used in creating the story, as recited in claim 14 (Br. 13). Similar to the
arguments made above for claim 13, we find the examiner’s position to be
reasonable as Ferrel provides for editing the story as claimed (FF 4-6).
Appellant provides no additional arguments for claim 36, which includes a
similar limitation, and relies on the arguments made for the patentability of
claim 14 (Br. 18-19). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed here, we
find that the teachings of Ferrel suggest the subject matter of claims 14 and
36.
.
Rejection of claims 15 and 37
Regarding claim 15, Appellant argues that Ferrel publishes completed
stories and therefore, cannot benefit from providing feedback in the form of
approval or disapproval (Br. 14). The Examiner responds by taking Official
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013