Appeal 2007-0257
Application 10/047,123
displaying the retrieved digital assets; and
editing one or more of the retrieved digital assets, wherein the
editing is carried out in dependence upon user access privilege
and in dependence upon asset access permission.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Butler U.S. 6,584,493 B1 Jun. 24, 2003
(filed 9/14/99)
Skinner U.S. 6,721,740 B1 Apr. 13, 2004
(filed 6/5/98)
Rejection I: Claims 9, 10, 21, 22, 33, 34, 45, and 46 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph 2 for being indefinite, for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant
regards as the invention.
Rejection II: Claims 1 - 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
being obvious over Butler in view of Skinner.
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not indefinite,
and the claims are not rendered obvious by Butler alone, or in combination
with Skinner, for reasons to be discussed more fully below. Additionally the
Appellant contends that the Butler reference and the Skinner reference are
improperly combined.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013