Appeal No. 2004-0755
Application No. 09/110,109
claim 1 of storing a view for the user and storing a class of
services for the user mean “that if the user has the job position
of Department Manager in the organizational chart they have
access privileges to access specific information, service or
resources pertaining to Department Managers which constitutes a
view as can be seen in figures 2A, table 2B, 3A-5, and related
text of col. 7, lines 17 et. seq. in Deinhart et al. and related
sections cited by Appellant in the section entitled ‘Summary of
the Invention’ of the instant Appeal Brief” (answer, page 11).
The steps addressed by the examiner require “storing a view
for the user, the view specifying the levels and the members of
the organizational structure to which the user is allowed access”
and “storing a class of services for the user, the class of
services specifying services of the performance evaluation system
that the user is allowed to perform”. The examiner has not
pointed out where the subject matter of those steps or the other
steps appears, expressly or inherently, in Deinhart. See Corning
Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric, 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56, 9
USPQ2d 1962, 1965 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Consequently, the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of anticipation of the
method claimed in claim 1. We therefore reverse the rejection of
that claim and claims 2-8 that depend therefrom.
Claims 9 and 14
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007