Appeal 2007-1361
Application 09/681,573
for disseminating. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 16 and of
claims 17-23, which fall therewith.
VII. CLAIM 24
The Examiner admits, "ATS, Bendik, and Alam fail to specifically
disclose displaying a listing of document approving supervisors." (Answer
14.) He likewise admits that Ouchi fails to display a list of supervisors (id.),
but alleges that the latter reference "discloses displaying a list of addresses in
response to a user instruction (Figure 12; column 10, lines 63-66: The setting
of the BRANCH INDICATOR is a user instruction)." (Id.) The Appellants
argue, "Ouchi fails to teach or suggest that any of the addresses in the
distribution list are displayed." (Br. 18) Therefore, the issue is whether
Ouchi would have suggested displaying a list of supervisors who approve
documents.
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Claim 24 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "displays a
listing of document approving supervisors." In other words, the limitations
require displaying a list of supervisors who approve documents.
B. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
Figure 12 of Ouchi "illustrates a route that specifies that a set of e-
mails are to be sent to a distribution list if the user at e-mail address B sets
the BRANCH INDICATOR=N." (Col. 10, ll. 63-66.) Despite his
allegation, the Examiner has not shown that the reference displays any of the
20
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013