Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920
Regarding claims 24 and 43, we find Appellants’ arguments
unavailing (Br. 15). As discussed supra with respect to claim 23, once a
stage is completed, the item is promoted and the next set of reviewers can
review the document. Ivanov teaches the next set of reviewers is notified
when the update review process is initiated (col. 9, l. 66 through col. 10, l.
8). We find the reviewers for the next stage are “authors” because they write
reviews and are “associated with” the content item since they are reviewing
the content item.
Regarding claims 26, 27, and 45, we find Appellants’ arguments
unavailing (Br. 15-16). We direct Appellants attention to Ivanov at column
18, lines 5-9 of which describes reminding a reviewer if a time period has
passed without the update review process being completed.
Dependent claims 20-22, 25, 28-31, 41, 42, 44, and 46-49
Responsive to Appellants’ arguments, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of the following dependent claims as being unpatentable over
Ivanov in view of Klibaner:
Regarding claim 20, we find Appellants’ arguments persuasive (Br.
13). We note the Examiner has cited only Fig. 1 of Klibaner as allegedly
teaching the subject matter of claim 20. However, after reviewing Fig. 1
(Klibaner) and both references relied on by the Examiner, we find Ivanov
and Kilbaner fail to teach or reasonably suggest copying the content item to
a staging server or copying the content item from the staging server to a
production server automatically during automatic synchronization of the
staging and production servers, as required by the language of claim 20.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013