Appeal 2007-1361
Application 09/681,573
IV. CLAIMS 8-11 AND 13-15
Here, the Appellants argue claims 8-11 and 13-15, which are subject
to the same ground of rejection, as a group. (Br. 12-13.) We select claim 8
as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of the group.
The Examiner finds, "Bendik discloses conforming data to a
document management system with parameters (paragraph 0049)." (Answer
8.) The Appellants argue, "Instead of creating a PDF document according
external rules, PDFWriter creates a PDF file according to its own rules."
(Br. 13.) Therefore, the issue is whether the combined teachings of ATS and
Bendik would have suggested disseminating electronic media to a DMS in
accordance with the latter's rules for storage.
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Claim 8 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "publish the
content of the electronic media directly into the at least one publication
format in accordance with the received media control instruction and storage
rules of the document management system. . . ." Giving the representative
claim the broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations merely require
disseminating electronic media to a DMS in accordance with the DMS' rules
for storage.
B. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013