Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920
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
initiating the update review process in response to the current data matching
the update review data identified in the content management record. Upon
review of the sections cited by the Examiner, and the references in their
entirety, we find Ivanov and Kilbaner do not teach or reasonably suggest that
“initiating the update review process is performed in response to the current
data matching the update review data identified in the content management
record,” as required by the language of claims 25 and 44. 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 teaches initiating an update review process in
response to the current data matching one of these dates.
Regarding claims 28 and 46, we find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive (Br. 16). We note again that the Examiner has provided only a
single paragraph in support of the rejection of numerous dependent claims,
including claims 28 and 46 (Answer 5, 12). The Examiner has not provided
any specific citation directed to “demotion of the content item,” as claimed
(claims 28 and 46). Upon review of the general citations of the Examiner,
and the entirety of Ivanov and Klibaner, we find nothing in Ivanov or
Kilbaner that fairly teaches or reasonably suggests that “initiating the update
review process includes initiating demotion of the content item a time period
after the update review process has been initiated if the update review
process has not yet been completed,” as required by the language of claim
28 and the equivalent language of claim 46.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013