Appeal No. 2005-0476
Application No. 08/848,077
The examiner’s rejection of claim 160, on page 10 of the answer repeats
the same rational applied to claim 151 discussed above. In response to the
appellants’ arguments, the examiner states, on page 50 of the answer “it is noted
that the features upon which applicant relies [sic, appellants rely] (i.e., “of one or
more features of an appliance”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).”
We disagree with the examiner. Claim 160 includes the limitations
“identifying one or more features of the appliance” and “based on the
identification, determining whether to use the first rule set or the second rule set
to govern a usage of the governed information.” Thus, contrary to the examiner’s
assertions, we find that the scope of claim 160 includes a determination of
whether to use a first or second rule is based upon an identification of one or
more features of the appliance. We do not find that Hekmatpour teaches or
suggests this limitation. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 160 or claims 164, and 169 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Hekmatpour.
The rejection of claims 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 177.
Appellants argue on page 14 of the brief:
Claim 170 recites the steps of identifying a first appliance or one or more
resources of the first appliance and, based on the identification,
determining to use a first rule set to govern a first use of governed
information. Claim 170 also recites the steps of identifying a second
appliance or one or more resources of the second appliance and based on
the identification, determining to use a second rule set to govern a second
use of the governed information. Hekmatpour does not teach or suggest
these steps.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007