Appeal 2007-0954
Application 09/999,074
reasonably employ, we see no reason why the skilled artisan would not have
combined the user management features of Guheen with Berg’s workflow
management capability. Such a combination would provide, among other
things, customized interfaces tailored to particular users in a workflow
environment. For at least these reasons, the skilled artisan would have
reasonably combined the respective teachings of the references.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1. Since Appellants have not separately argued the
patentability of claims 2, 3, 5, 7-15, 17-20, 24, 26-28, 38, 39, 41, 43-46, 48,
49, 53, 54, and 58-60 with particularity, these claims fall with representative
claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
With regard to the Examiner’s respective rejections of (1) claims 4,
21, 22, 40, 47, 52, 55, and 56; (2) claim 23; (3) claim 29; (4) claims 6, 16,
25, 30-32, 34, 36, 37, 42, 50, 51, 61, and 62; (4) claims 33 and 35; (7) claim
57; and (8) claim 63 (Answer 7-16), we find that the Examiner has
established at least a prima facie case of obviousness of those claims that
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted. Specifically, the Examiner has
(1) pointed out the teachings of the cited references, (2) noted the perceived
differences between the references and the claimed invention, and (3)
reasonably indicated how and why the references would have been modified
to arrive at the claimed invention (Answer 7-16). Once the Examiner has
satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, the
burden then shifts to Appellants to present evidence or arguments that
persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case. Appellants, however,
did not persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness,
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013