Appeal 2006-2936
Application 10/013,714
Claims 30, 48, 50 and 51
Here, Appellant reiterates the argument submitted for claims 4 and 6.
Appellant contends that Britton does not anticipate claims 30, 48, 50 and 51
since it fails to teach the limitation of verifying the safety of the program
before making the data access permission setting for the program to access
the database. (Br. 23-25.) We agree with Appellant for the same reasons set
forth in our discussion of claims 4 and 6 above. We therefore reverse this
rejection.
Claim 47
Appellant alleges that Britton’s teachings are insufficient to anticipate
claim 47. (Br. 23.) However, Appellant does not show that the Examiner
failed to establish that Britton anticipates the cited claims. Particularly,
Appellant’s allegations failed to show that the portions of Britton upon
which the Examiner relies in the rejection do not teach at least one of the
claim limitations. In our view, such allegations do not rebut the Examiner’s
prima facie case of anticipation against the cited claims.
Further, Appellant’s assertion that claim 47 recites “a data access
permission setting for the program by verifying the safety of the program” is
inaccurate. Nowhere in claim 47 is there any recitation pertaining to
verifying the safety of the program. It is our view that Appellant failed to
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s rejection of claim 47. Consequently, we
affirm the rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013