Appeal No. 2002-0799
Application No. 08/947,435
arranged a certain way in the computer memory with the attributes in the data structure
being those of files marked as hidden, read-only, and archive” (answer-page 4).
We agree with appellants that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case
of obviousness since Zarmer does not disclose or suggest the steps of automatically
extracting attribute data from an imported electronic document, generating a separate
data structure, in which the extracted attribute data is stored and maintained in memory
separate from the imported document, and linking the imported document to an
electronic folder if the attribute data contained in the data structure matches a set of
predefined criteria associated with the electronic folder.
This non-disclosure by Zarmer is not dispositive of the case because the
examiner recognized these deficiencies. However, the examiner’s reasoning as to why
it would have been obvious to have provided for these deficiencies in Zarmer is faulty.
The examiner’s reasoning, in toto, is that the artisan would have found it obvious “to
have a set of predefined criteria because the information in the data structure is
arranged a certain way in the computer memory with the attributes in the data structure
being those of files marked as hidden, read-only, and archive” (answer-page 4).
Appellants do not deny that they have not invented storage of attributes, per se. Rather,
the claimed invention is directed to a particular set of steps of a method. The
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007