Appeal 2007-0257
Application 10/047,123
certain essential claimed limitations. Neither the Butler reference, nor the
Skinner reference, nor the combination of them teaches the user records and
the digital asset records, each with a permission field, and the use of both
fields to permit editing of the digital asset. (Findings of Fact #6 to #9.) We
have considered the logic of the Examiner and the citations from the
dictionary. While the latter may be useful for clarifying claim and
specification language, it cannot supply structure that is not disclosed in the
references. (Findings of Fact #10.)
Appellant and Examiner have differing contentions on the
combinability of the Butler and Skinner references, (Br. 15 - 22.) but as we
find essential elements of the claims missing from the cited references, that
issue need not be addressed.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, 21, 22, 33, 34, 45, and 46 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. The rejection of those claims is reversed.
Based on the Findings of Fact and Analysis above, we also conclude
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for
being obvious over Butler in view of Skinner.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013