Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920
note that one limitation in dispute in claim 1 is “promoting the content item
as a result of the content management process such that the content item is
user accessible” (emphasis added), which the Examiner and Appellants
appear to agree is not present in Ivanov alone (see Br. 5, see Answer 7-8).
However, after carefully reviewing the evidence before us, we find that
Ivanov does, in fact, teach promotion of content to make the content user
accessible.
In particular, we note that Ivanov discloses a plurality of review stages
(col. 8, ll. 34-45). Once a review stage is completed, the workflow manager
triggers review of the next stage (col. 8, ll. 46-51). The reviewers at a
particular stage may only access the document for review once all reviews at
the prior stage are completed (col. 8, ll. 43-45). Therefore, once a review
stage is completed, the content item (document) is “promoted” such that is it
user accessible (i.e., new reviewers may access the document for review).
Nevertheless, even without relying on this teaching of Ivanov, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of each independent claim since we conclude Klibaner
may be properly combined with Ivanov and we find the combination teaches
all elements of each claim, as discussed infra.
Motivation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013