Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920
on a website. We agree with the Examiner that the proffered combination
would have been an advantageous improvement to Ivanov, since the
combined system would have provided publication of the approved
documents to a website, while also ensuring that documents would not
appear on the website without first passing through a tiered review process.
Therefore, when we take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed, we find the
Examiner has articulated an adequate reasoning with a rational underpinning
that reasonably supports the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Independent Claim 1
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as
being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Klibaner.
Appellants argue: (a) the combination of Ivanov and Klibaner fails to
teach or suggest the promotion of content to make the content “user
accessible” in a database (Br. 5), and (b) that neither Ivanov or Klibaner
teaches or suggests updating the content management information stored in
the content management record to indicate that the content item has been
promoted (Br. 7). Appellants further argue (c), that the Examiner has taken
a definition of “promotion” altogether different from that which would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art reading Applicants’ disclosure
(Br. 8).
The Examiner disagrees for essentially the same reasons we further
discuss infra (Answer 6-9).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013