Appeal 2007-0039
Application 09/799,413
Notice that an “offensive-content editor” means is common in the art and its
inclusion in the system of Ferrel would have been obvious (Answer 15).
Additionally, the Examiner argues that the editing functionalities in Ferrel
would have limited the availability of offensive material to the viewer in the
form of non-publication of the material (id.).
We agree with the Examiner that the selection of the stories by the
Editorial Staff (FF 8-9) encompasses an editor review to determine the
existence of any offensive content. Furthermore, the Examiner is correct to
conclude that non-publication of a story, whose content was not approved by
the Editorial staff, constitutes the feedback to the user indicating
disapproval, whereas publication of the story indicates approval to the user.
Appellant provides no additional arguments for claim 37, which includes a
similar limitation, and relies on the arguments made for the patentability of
claim 15 (Br. 19). Therefore, based on our discussion above and for the
same reasons discussed here, we find that the teachings of Ferrel suggest the
subject matter of claims 15 and 37.
Rejection of claims 23-29, 31-34, and 38-43
Appellant provides no new arguments for these claims and merely
relies on the arguments made in support of the patentability of claims 1-7, 9-
12, and 16-22 (Br. 15-17). Therefore, in light of our findings above with
respect to claim 1, we find that the teachings of Ferrel suggest the subject
matter of claims 23-29, 31-34, and 38-43. See Young, 927 F.2d at 590,
18 USPQ2d at 1091. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013