Appeal No. 2004-1156
Application No. 09/071,594
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope
of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
limitations set forth in independent claim 1. At pages 5-7 of the brief, appellants argue
that the invention recited in independent claim 1 is directed to a proposed action and a
selected policy object from among a plurality of policy objects. The selected policy
object is invoked to dynamically obtain variable information at the selected policy object
from a source independent of the system component. (See brief at page 6.) At pages
7-9 of the brief, appellants paraphrase the examiner’s position concerning the
interpretation of the claimed invention and the applied prior art references. Here, we
agree with appellants assessment of the examiner’s application of the prior art to the
claimed invention and agree with appellants that the logon security procedures of
Brandt arguably may have a single security policy object, but it is not selected from a
plurality of policy objects. Therefore, the combination of Brandt and Grimm does not
teach or fairly suggest the invention as recited in independent claims 1 and 23.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 23 and their
dependent claims 2-22 and 24-36.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007