Appeal 2007-0437
Application 09/982,224
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellants’ positions, and
to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
Generally, for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, we
sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
According to Appellants’ disclosure and discussion of the subject
matter of the independent claims on appeal at pages 2-3 of the principal
brief, an initial subgroup of these claims comprises claims 1, 20 and 39, and
a second subgroup comprises claims 12, 31 and 50. Appellants urged
patentability of this second subgroup of claims at the bottom of page 9 of the
principal Brief on appeal based upon the arguments presented as to
independent claim 1, which is representative of independent claims 1, 20 and
39. In contrast to the subject matter of claim 1, it is noted here that
independent claim 12 does not recite the claimed second heartbeat command
as set forth in claim 1, where this feature is recited in its dependent claim 13.
A corresponding relationship exists with respect to dependent claims 32 as
depending from claim 31 and 51 depending from claim 50. Since we find
unpatentable the subject matter of representative independent claim 1 on
appeal, we do so for each independent claim. We treat in turn the arguments
presented as to dependent claims 6, 10, 11 and 16 as representative of
corresponding dependent claims among the other independent claims.
Page 4 of the Answer indicates that the Examiner recognizes that
Brown does not “specifically teach” collaborators that communicate
modifications of documents by means of “heartbeat commands” that are
regularly transmitted at defined intervals. Although we agree with the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013