Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920
performed by the workflow manager who changes the status of the
document to “Finalized” once all review stages are complete (id.).
Regarding Appellants’ argument (c), we note that Appellants have not
provided a definition of “promotion” in the Specification. Accordingly, we
give the term its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. Appellants describe promotion in the context of the
statement: “[a]ny approved content item is thereafter promoted such that
such content item is available to users of the content controlled database”
(Specification 7, ll. 8-9). Thus, we conclude that a broad but reasonable
interpretation of the term “promoted” is met by an operation where a
document is finally approved for publication on a publicly accessible web
server, as taught and/or suggested by the combination Ivanov and Klibaner.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude the Examiner
has met the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Klibaner.
Dependent claims 2-12, 17, and 18
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 2-12, 17, and 18. In the
absence of a separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those
claims stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013