Ex Parte Edd et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2007

09871920 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte LINDA D. EDD, TERRY CHARLES LAMBERT,
TIMOTHY JERALD MCGUIRE, and THOMAS ALAN SHORE

__________

Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: June 28, 2007
__________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-50 and 59. It is our view, after
consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon supports
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32-40, 43, 45, 50,
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

and 59, but does not support the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20-22, 25,
28-31, 41, 42, 44, and 46-49. Accordingly, we AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
The disclosed invention generally relates to the management of
electronic content. More particularly, the disclosed invention is directed to
the management of electronic content organized into a website and
accessible via a network such as the Internet. In various embodiments,
content management information for a content item is maintained in a
content management record that is separate from the content item, which
allows for greater flexibility when implementing changes in a content
management process, and when managing content in different domains.
Moreover, in various embodiments, content management records are
maintained in a groupware-type environment, whereby collaborative tools
such as document sharing and messaging may be used to facilitate the
interaction among members of a content creation, development and
management team during the various stages of a content management
process (Specification 1, 4).

Independent claim 1 is illustrative:

1. A method of managing content in a content-controlled database, the
method comprising:

(a) linking a content management record to a content item to be
incorporated into a content-controlled database, the content management
record storing content management information associated with the content
item;

2
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

(b) processing the content item through a plurality of stages of a
content management process, including updating the content management
information stored in the content management record during each stage of
the content management process, wherein the plurality of stages includes at
least one review stage during which approval of the content item is obtained;
and

(c) promoting the content item as a result of the content management
process such that the content item is user accessible from the content-
controlled database, including updating the content management information
stored in the content management record to indicate that the content item has
been promoted.

THE REFERENCES
Ivanov US 5,706,452 Jan. 6, 1998
Klibaner US 2002/0161597 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
(filed Jun. 27, 2001)

THE REJECTION
1. Claims 1-50 and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Ivanov in view of
Klibaner.

Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.

ANALYSIS
At the outset, we find both Appellants and the Examiner have given
incomplete consideration to the teaching value of Ivanov and Klibaner. We
3
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

note that one limitation in dispute in claim 1 is “promoting the content item
as a result of the content management process such that the content item is
user accessible” (emphasis added), which the Examiner and Appellants
appear to agree is not present in Ivanov alone (see Br. 5, see Answer 7-8).
However, after carefully reviewing the evidence before us, we find that
Ivanov does, in fact, teach promotion of content to make the content user
accessible.
In particular, we note that Ivanov discloses a plurality of review stages
(col. 8, ll. 34-45). Once a review stage is completed, the workflow manager
triggers review of the next stage (col. 8, ll. 46-51). The reviewers at a
particular stage may only access the document for review once all reviews at
the prior stage are completed (col. 8, ll. 43-45). Therefore, once a review
stage is completed, the content item (document) is “promoted” such that is it
user accessible (i.e., new reviewers may access the document for review).
Nevertheless, even without relying on this teaching of Ivanov, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of each independent claim since we conclude Klibaner
may be properly combined with Ivanov and we find the combination teaches
all elements of each claim, as discussed infra.

Motivation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148
4
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

USPQ 459, 467 (1966). Furthermore, “‘there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In KSR, The
Supreme Court further stated:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations
of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same
reason, if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
This reasoning is applicable here. We note that Ivanov teaches
approving documents using a tiered review process (col. 8, ll. 34-48).
Klibaner teaches publication of a document to a website, upon approval by
multiple parties (pp. 2-3, ¶ 26; see also p. 8, ¶ 48). Therefore, we conclude
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that
modifying Ivanov with the teachings of Klibaner would have resulted in a
predictable variation of Ivanov, i.e., a combined system where a document is
approved by multiple parties via a tiered review process before publication
5
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

on a website. We agree with the Examiner that the proffered combination
would have been an advantageous improvement to Ivanov, since the
combined system would have provided publication of the approved
documents to a website, while also ensuring that documents would not
appear on the website without first passing through a tiered review process.
Therefore, when we take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed, we find the
Examiner has articulated an adequate reasoning with a rational underpinning
that reasonably supports the legal conclusion of obviousness.

Independent Claim 1
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as
being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Klibaner.
Appellants argue: (a) the combination of Ivanov and Klibaner fails to
teach or suggest the promotion of content to make the content “user
accessible” in a database (Br. 5), and (b) that neither Ivanov or Klibaner
teaches or suggests updating the content management information stored in
the content management record to indicate that the content item has been
promoted (Br. 7). Appellants further argue (c), that the Examiner has taken
a definition of “promotion” altogether different from that which would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art reading Applicants’ disclosure
(Br. 8).
The Examiner disagrees for essentially the same reasons we further
discuss infra (Answer 6-9).
6
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

In response to Appellants’ argument (a) that neither Ivanov or
Klibaner teaches or suggests the promotion of content to make the content
“user accessible” in a database (see Br. 5), we find Ivanov teaches a plurality
of “promotions,” since each stage of the review process must be completed
before the document can be “promoted” to the next stage, until it is finally
approved (col. 8, ll. 34-51). We note Ivanov also teaches a database that
stores documents and reviews (col. 7, ll. 47-49, 61-63, col. 8, l. 6). We find
Klibaner teaches publication of a document that has been approved by
multiple parties (i.e., content controlled), since the “decision” of Klibaner’s
process is published as a result of mutual agreement of the parties (pp. 2-3,
¶¶ 23, 25, and 26; see also p. 8, ¶ 48). We further note that Klibaner teaches
the information placed on the website is preferably stored and maintained in
a database (p. 2, ¶ 25). Therefore, we conclude the combination of Ivanov
and Klibaner would have resulted in publication of finally approved
documents as a result of a mutual agreement by the reviewers. Thus, a
document that received final approval and was published would have been
promoted and made user accessible from a content-controlled database, as
required by the language of claim 1.
We disagree with Appellants’ argument (b) that neither Ivanov nor
Klibaner teaches or suggests updating the content management information
stored in the content management record to indicate that the content item has
been promoted (see Br. 7). In contrast, we find Ivanov teaches and/or
suggests these limitations. Specifically, Ivanov teaches updating a content
management record when a document receives final approval, i.e., after all
stages have been finalized (col. 15, lines 34-38). This operation is
7
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

performed by the workflow manager who changes the status of the
document to “Finalized” once all review stages are complete (id.).
Regarding Appellants’ argument (c), we note that Appellants have not
provided a definition of “promotion” in the Specification. Accordingly, we
give the term its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. Appellants describe promotion in the context of the
statement: “[a]ny approved content item is thereafter promoted such that
such content item is available to users of the content controlled database”
(Specification 7, ll. 8-9). Thus, we conclude that a broad but reasonable
interpretation of the term “promoted” is met by an operation where a
document is finally approved for publication on a publicly accessible web
server, as taught and/or suggested by the combination Ivanov and Klibaner.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude the Examiner
has met the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Klibaner.

Dependent claims 2-12, 17, and 18
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 2-12, 17, and 18. In the
absence of a separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those
claims stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
8
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of
Klibaner for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.

Independent claims 32, 50, and 59
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 32,
50, and 59 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Klibaner.
We note that Appellants rely on the same arguments previously
presented for claim 1, and present an additional argument that each of
independent claims 32, 50, and 59 recite a program for promoting the
content item as a result of the content management process and updating the
content management record (Br. 9-10). However, we find the systems
disclosed by both Ivanov and Klibaner are computer systems. We further
find the argued promotion/updating steps are automatically performed by
Ivanov’s workflow manager program (col. 7, ll. 11-18; see also col. 15, ll.
34-38) that resides on “server computer 24” (col. 7, ll. 44-45). Therefore,
we conclude the Examiner has met the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness for independent claims 32, 50, and 59. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 32, 50, and 59 as
being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Klibaner.

Dependent claims 33-38 and 40
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 33-38 and 40. In the
absence of a separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those
claims stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re
9
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

Young, 927 F.2d at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Klibaner for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 32.

Dependent claims 13-16, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 39, 43 and 45
Turning to the remaining dependent claims, Appellants have argued
several groups of dependent claims separately. We will initially address
dependent claims 13-16, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 39, 43 and 45. We have
sustained the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being obvious over
Ivanov in view of Klibaner for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 13, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing (Br.
11). We agree with the Examiner that the copyright reviewers disclosed by
Ivanov (col. 9, ll. 50-63) are “country-related” entities that review the item
based on “country-specific” requirements, since copyright laws are country
specific (see Answer 10).
Regarding claim 14, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing (Br.
11). We agree with the Examiner that a typical database administrator has
responsibility for “all of the content” in a database (see Answer 10-11).
Furthermore, we find Ivanov discloses a “final reviewer” that reviews a
document after all other reviews have been completed (col. 8, ll. 43-45).
Therefore, we conclude that Ivanov would have provided a clear suggestion
to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ at least one reviewer having
responsibility for all the database content to ensure that all content items are
universally approved before publication.
10
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

Regarding claim 15, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing (Br.
12). We note the Examiner has pointed to Ivanov at column 27, lines 15-20
as teaching a revision process in which a rejected proposal can be modified
and resubmitted (see Answer 11). We agree with the Examiner that this post
rejection stage is a development stage since it changes the content of the
document and “formats” it for inclusion in the database.
Regarding claims 16 and 39, we find Appellants’ arguments
unavailing (Br. 12). We agree with the Examiner that the resubmission of a
revised content item includes returning the content item to an earlier stage in
the content management process; specifically, returning to the first review
stage (see Answer 11).
Regarding claim 19, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing (Br.
13). Appellants argue that claim 19 is not directed to a “web server in the
abstract,” but rather refines the concept of promotion (id.). However, we
have found supra that the combination of Ivanov and Klibaner teaches
and/or suggests promotion of a content item for publishing on a website
server (see discussion of claim 1 supra).
Regarding claim 23, we find Appellants’ arguments unavailing (Br.
15). As discussed supra, Ivanov discloses a plurality of “promotions” as
each stage of the review process is complete. Once a stage of the review
process is completed, the content item is promoted and the next set of
reviewers can review the document (Ivanov, col. 8, ll. 20-59). Since all
reviews are combined to form one master review (i.e., grade), we find each
successive review stage can reasonably be interpreted as an “update review
process,” as claimed.
11
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

Regarding claims 24 and 43, we find Appellants’ arguments
unavailing (Br. 15). As discussed supra with respect to claim 23, once a
stage is completed, the item is promoted and the next set of reviewers can
review the document. Ivanov teaches the next set of reviewers is notified
when the update review process is initiated (col. 9, l. 66 through col. 10, l.
8). We find the reviewers for the next stage are “authors” because they write
reviews and are “associated with” the content item since they are reviewing
the content item.
Regarding claims 26, 27, and 45, we find Appellants’ arguments
unavailing (Br. 15-16). We direct Appellants attention to Ivanov at column
18, lines 5-9 of which describes reminding a reviewer if a time period has
passed without the update review process being completed.

Dependent claims 20-22, 25, 28-31, 41, 42, 44, and 46-49
Responsive to Appellants’ arguments, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of the following dependent claims as being unpatentable over
Ivanov in view of Klibaner:
Regarding claim 20, we find Appellants’ arguments persuasive (Br.
13). We note the Examiner has cited only Fig. 1 of Klibaner as allegedly
teaching the subject matter of claim 20. However, after reviewing Fig. 1
(Klibaner) and both references relied on by the Examiner, we find Ivanov
and Kilbaner fail to teach or reasonably suggest copying the content item to
a staging server or copying the content item from the staging server to a
production server automatically during automatic synchronization of the
staging and production servers, as required by the language of claim 20.
12
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

Regarding claims 21 and 41, we find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive (Br. 14). We note the Examiner has provided only a single
paragraph in support of the rejection of numerous dependent claims,
including claims 21 and 41 (see Answer 5, 12). The Examiner has provided
a 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
deferring promotion of the content item. Upon review of the sections cited
by the Examiner, and the entirety of Ivanov and Klibaner, we find Ivanov
and Kilbaner fail to teach or reasonably suggest “after approval of the
content item, deferring promotion of the content item until a predetermined
date identified in the content management record,” as required by the
language of claim 21 and the equivalent language of claim 41. 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 discloses deferring promotion of
the content item until a particular date after the content item has been
approved.
We note that claims 22 and 42 depend from claims 21 and 41,
respectively. Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejections of claims
21 and 41, we will also reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 22 and
42 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Kilbaner.
Regarding claims 25 and 44, we find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive (Br. 15). We note again that the Examiner has provided only a
single paragraph in support of the rejection of numerous dependent claims,
including claims 25 and 44 (Answer 5, 12). The Examiner has provided a
13
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
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

Regarding claims 29 and 47, we find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive (Br. 16-17). Again, we note the Examiner has provided only a
general citation in support of the rejection of numerous dependent claims,
including claims 29 and 47 (Answer 5, 12). The Examiner has not provided
any specific citation directed to whether the content item is a “parent content
item” or “automatically initiating a review of a child content item linked to
the parent content item” (claim 29; see also equivalent language of claim 47)
Upon review of the general citations of the Examiner, and the entirety of
both references, we find nothing in Ivanov or Kilbaner that fairly teaches or
reasonably suggests that “the content item is a parent content item” or
“automatically initiating a review of a child content item linked to the parent
content item in response to a modification of the parent content item,” as
required by the language of claim 29 and the equivalent language of claim
47.
We note that claims 30, 31, 48, and 49 depend from claims 29 and 47,
respectively. Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejections of claims
29 and 47, we will also reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 30, 31,
48, and 49 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Kilbaner.

DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19, 23, 24, 26, 27,
32-40, 43, 45, 50, and 59, but we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
20-22, 25, 28-31, 41, 42, 44, and 46-49. Therefore, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-50 and 59 is affirmed-in-part.
15
Appeal 2007-0990
Application 09/871,920

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

rwk

WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM)
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI OH 45202

16