Appeal 2007-0039
Application 09/799,413
Rejection of claim 44
Appellant argues that Ferrel lacks any teachings indicating the step of
entering the story into a contest and posting the results on a user interface
(Br. 20). Appellant further argues that Ferrel is a publishing system and
gains no benefit from modifying the reference teachings to include the
publishers’ participation in a contest (Br. 21). The Examiner responds by
characterizing a contest as a popular way to promote the publishing system
(Answer 18). While the Examiner’s observation about contests may be
reasonable, we observe that Ferrel’s selection of the stories to be published
by the editorial staff may reasonable be considered as a contest (FF 8-10).
In that regard, the stories submitted to the editorial staff for selection are
actually stories entered into a contest wherein selections of stories for release
based on the content and other criteria by the editorial staff is the same as
announcing the results by posting the published stories. Therefore, in view
of our discussion above, we find that Ferrel suggests the subject matter of
claim 44.
Rejection of claim 45
Appellant provides no additional arguments for claim 45 and relies on
similar arguments that were made for the patentability of claims 1, 8, 13, and
14 (Br. 21-23). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed supra, we find
that Ferrel suggests the subject matter of claim 45.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013