Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
facie case of obviousness, and we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5,
14, and 21.
With respect to dependent claims 8, 18, and 23, the examiner relies upon the
teachings of Srinivasan with respect to the use of passwords and authorization levels.
The examiner provides a discussion of the teachings of Srinivasan at pages 6, 7, and
12 of the answer. We agree with the examiner’s position and the combination of the
references. Appellant argues that the combination of does not teach or suggest the
“personal profile . . . that specifies the knowledge worker and a selected knowledge
worker view” and “a default profile associated with a corresponding knowledge workers’
view.” (See brief at page 11.) The examiner maintains that different people using a
system would have different levels and types of access to the system and the data
processes thereon. (See answer at page 12. ) We agree with the examiner, and we
find no difference between the knowledge worker views recited in the claims and
various levels of access. Appellant’s specification discussses knowledge worker views
at pages 19 et seq., but does not specifically detail or define the term “knowledge
worker view”. Therefore, we find the examiner’s line of reasoning convincing as to
having different levels of authorization for different classes and types of employees and
the use of both personal and default profiles. Therefore, appellant’s argument
concerning “views” is not persuasive.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007