Appeal 2007-0954
Application 09/999,074
so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). If
that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Appellants to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the independent claims, the Examiner's rejection
essentially finds that Berg teaches a computer that performs a first workflow
as claimed including performing a task on an “identity profile.” Under one
interpretation of “identity profile,” the Examiner contends that the limitation
corresponds to Berg’s behavioral description of a circuit design under
Appellants’ definition of the term “identity profile.”
The Examiner adds that even under an alternative interpretation of
“identity profile” (i.e., corresponding to a “user profile”), Guheen teaches
notifying administrators and knowledge managers to maintain profiles
including adding new users, changing user IDs, re-establishing user
passwords, etc. Under this alternate interpretation, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to combine Guheen’s teaching into Berg’s workflow to
handle administration tasks so that user profiles could be managed in a
workflow environment (Answer 3-7).
Regarding the independent claims,6 Appellants argue that the prior art
does not teach or suggest performing a first workflow, the first workflow
6 Although Appellants provide separate arguments in connection with each
independent claim (Br. 13-15), the arguments are all directed to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013