Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920
In response to Appellants’ argument (a) that neither Ivanov or
Klibaner teaches or suggests the promotion of content to make the content
“user accessible” in a database (see Br. 5), we find Ivanov teaches a plurality
of “promotions,” since each stage of the review process must be completed
before the document can be “promoted” to the next stage, until it is finally
approved (col. 8, ll. 34-51). We note Ivanov also teaches a database that
stores documents and reviews (col. 7, ll. 47-49, 61-63, col. 8, l. 6). We find
Klibaner teaches publication of a document that has been approved by
multiple parties (i.e., content controlled), since the “decision” of Klibaner’s
process is published as a result of mutual agreement of the parties (pp. 2-3,
¶¶ 23, 25, and 26; see also p. 8, ¶ 48). We further note that Klibaner teaches
the information placed on the website is preferably stored and maintained in
a database (p. 2, ¶ 25). Therefore, we conclude the combination of Ivanov
and Klibaner would have resulted in publication of finally approved
documents as a result of a mutual agreement by the reviewers. Thus, a
document that received final approval and was published would have been
promoted and made user accessible from a content-controlled database, as
required by the language of claim 1.
We disagree with Appellants’ argument (b) that neither Ivanov nor
Klibaner teaches or suggests updating the content management information
stored in the content management record to indicate that the content item has
been promoted (see Br. 7). In contrast, we find Ivanov teaches and/or
suggests these limitations. Specifically, Ivanov teaches updating a content
management record when a document receives final approval, i.e., after all
stages have been finalized (col. 15, lines 34-38). This operation is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013