Appeal 2007-1105
Application 09/731,912
1 template or formatting information. Both Chang and Giljum teach the
2 desirability of editing template or format information (Findings of Fact 9 and
3 11-12). Thus, we conclude that the references provide a sufficient
4 suggestion to those skilled in the art to modify the Chang system to include
5 group editing of template or formatting information in addition to Chang’s
6 group editing of content information.
7 With respect to claims 34, 38, and 42, Appellant argues that Chang
8 and Giljum do not disclose or suggest “the formatting information is distinct
9 from editable content items of the electronic document” (Br. 7:15-19). We
10 disagree. Our Findings of Fact 7-9 show that Appellant is again in error.
11 We find that, in Chang, the template, formatting, and content information in
12 the electronic document are all editable and are all distinct.
13 With respect to claims 35, 39, and 43, Appellant argues that Chang
14 and Giljum do not disclose or suggest “merging a modified content item
15 back into an electronic document under the condition where template
16 information or formatting information of the document was altered while a
17 content item was modified” (Br. 8:1-3). We disagree. Our Finding of Fact
18 10 shows that Chang teaches merging first modified content information
19 back into the electronic document even if second content information was
20 altered while the first information was modified. That is, “[p]ages are not
21 locked during [group] editing” and edits must be resolved by the user only if
22 “an edit to the [same] item has occurred.” (Chang 14). Thus, we conclude
23 that the references provide a sufficient suggestion to those skilled in the art
24 to modify the Chang system to permit merging of modified first information
25 back into the electronic document even if second information was altered
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013