Appeal 2007-0153
Application 09/792,918
1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR
Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007),
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981). Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take into
account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA
1968).
ANALYSIS
1. 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims
Appellant correctly points out that the test security module 240 in
Pachauri only tests for the actions a user is authorized to perform on the
database secured by the database security managing system (Br. 5). While
some kind of authorization may be granted for the user access, Pachauri does
not disclose any teachings that indicate testing for the actions authorized by
the user is done without granting authorization to the database system.
Therefore, we agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 3-4) that the testing done by
Pachauri takes place after authorized access is checked or presumed. In fact,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013