Appeal 2007-1361
Application 09/681,573
The other paragraph cited by the Appellants describes "convert[ing]
the electronic data file into at least one of a number of publication formats. .
. ." (Id. ¶ 0012.) Although the paragraph explains that "a processor . . .
transmit[s] the converted data file to at least one publication system," it
mentions no "document management system."
These paragraphs indicate that the claimed "converter" and "document
management system" are separate elements. As best as we can tell from the
Specification, however, the claimed "publication system," is merely a part
of, a function of, or another name for the "converter" or the "document
management system." As found regarding claims 1-4, 7, and 25-29, a
definition of "publish" is "disseminate." Reading the representative claim in
view of the Specification, the limitations require a converter and a DMS, one
or both constituting a system for disseminating.
B. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
The Appellants' argument attacks ATS individually. As mentioned
regarding claims 8-11 and 13-15, however, the Examiner bases his rejection
on combined teachings of ATS and Bendik. Because the Adobe PDFWriter
coverts documents into PDF, we agree with the Examiner that PDFWriter
constitutes a converter. For its part, Bendik discloses a DMS. Teachings
within the references themselves would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill to combine a DMS with ATS' teaching of PDFWriter so as to
disseminate a formatted data file to a DMS. In such a combination,
moreover, either the PDFWriter, or the DMS, or both, constitutes a system
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013