Appeal 2007-0990 Application 09/871,920 Regarding claims 21 and 41, we find Appellants’ arguments persuasive (Br. 14). We note the Examiner has provided only a single paragraph in support of the rejection of numerous dependent claims, including claims 21 and 41 (see Answer 5, 12). The Examiner has provided a citation to “recording specific dates” at column 23, lines 60-62 and column 15, lines 42-45 of Ivanov, but has not provided a specific citation directed to deferring promotion of the content item. Upon review of the sections cited by the Examiner, and the entirety of Ivanov and Klibaner, we find Ivanov and Kilbaner fail to teach or reasonably suggest “after approval of the content item, deferring promotion of the content item until a predetermined date identified in the content management record,” as required by the language of claim 21 and the equivalent language of claim 41. While Ivanov discloses various dates in the content management record (e.g., col. 11, lines 45-50; col. 12, lines 53-58; col. 14, lines 14-18; col. 15, lines 40- 44), we find nothing in Ivanov that fairly discloses deferring promotion of the content item until a particular date after the content item has been approved. We note that claims 22 and 42 depend from claims 21 and 41, respectively. Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21 and 41, we will also reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 22 and 42 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Kilbaner. Regarding claims 25 and 44, we find Appellants’ arguments persuasive (Br. 15). We note again that the Examiner has provided only a single paragraph in support of the rejection of numerous dependent claims, including claims 25 and 44 (Answer 5, 12). The Examiner has provided a 13Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013