Appeal 2007-0257
Application 10/047,123
permission fields. Reviewing the recitations in columns 16, 17, and
18 of Skinner, as relied upon in the Examiner’s Final Rejection, (page
4, paragraph 6) reveals teachings of records of the digital assets,
including a discussion of a permissions model for determining access
permissions for different clients and users. However, we find no
teaching in either reference of the two permission fields in the user
record and the digital asset record, both of which are required to
determine the right to edit.
10. To further explain some of the reasons for the rejection, Examiner
quotes the Microsoft Computer Dictionary to indicate that many of the
claimed features are considered inherent in databases. (Answer 15 –
18). Although this tribunal agrees with much of the inference the
Examiner is taking from the definitions, they cannot supply the
missing steps or structure of the limitations quoted above. See the
Continental Can Co. and Robertson cases cited below.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection of the claims.
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013