Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920
Young, 927 F.2d at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Klibaner for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 32.
Dependent claims 13-16, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 39, 43 and 45
Turning to the remaining dependent claims, Appellants have argued
several groups of dependent claims separately. We will initially address
dependent claims 13-16, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 39, 43 and 45. We have
sustained the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being obvious over
Ivanov in view of Klibaner for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 13, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing (Br.
11). We agree with the Examiner that the copyright reviewers disclosed by
Ivanov (col. 9, ll. 50-63) are “country-related” entities that review the item
based on “country-specific” requirements, since copyright laws are country
specific (see Answer 10).
Regarding claim 14, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing (Br.
11). We agree with the Examiner that a typical database administrator has
responsibility for “all of the content” in a database (see Answer 10-11).
Furthermore, we find Ivanov discloses a “final reviewer” that reviews a
document after all other reviews have been completed (col. 8, ll. 43-45).
Therefore, we conclude that Ivanov would have provided a clear suggestion
to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ at least one reviewer having
responsibility for all the database content to ensure that all content items are
universally approved before publication.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013