Ex Parte Hackleman et al - Page 8


              Appeal 2007-0459                                                                       
              Application 10/285,927                                                                 
                    We find the recited language of “access analysis by comparing said               
              access attribute with said secrecy attribute” broadly but reasonably reads on          
              the user login disclosed by Liddy (col. 27, l. 65). We find Liddy’s user login         
              necessarily involves access analysis by comparing an access attribute (i.e., a         
              user login ID and/or password) with a secrecy attribute (i.e., a corresponding         
              user login ID and/or password), where the “secrecy attribute” is stored on             
              the computer to be accessed. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s                 
              rejection of representative claim 9 as being anticipated by Liddy.                     
                    Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal             
              with respect to claims 10-13 on the basis of the selected claim alone.                 
              Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being           
              anticipated by Liddy for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to              
              representative claim 9.                                                                
                                          Claims 31 and 32                                           
                    We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 32 as                 
              being anticipated by Liddy.  Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to               
              this rejection have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall         
              together, we will select independent claim 31 as the representative claim for          
              this rejection.  See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).                               
                    Appellants argue that no portion of Liddy, including the portion cited           
              by the Examiner, teaches or suggests monitoring communications for                     
              predetermined search parameters, as required by the language of                        
              independent claim 31. Appellants further argue that matching a query to a              
              database is not that same as “monitoring communications for predetermined              
              parameters,” as claimed (Br. 13).                                                      


                                                 8                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013