Appeal No. 2004-1156
Application No. 09/071,594
Appellants argue that Grimm teaches directly away from the present invention.
(See brief at pages 10-11.) We disagree with appellants, and find that Grimm is a
different teaching than the claimed invention and not a specific “teaching away.”
Appellants argue that another limitation with respect to independent claim 1 is the
“selected policy object.” (See brief at page 11.) Here, we find no limitation with respect
to a selection of a policy object or a selected policy object in independent claim 37.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue that Grimm and Brandt
do not teach or suggest a policy object that dynamically obtain variable information to
make a decision let alone from a source independent of the system component from
which the proposed action was received. We disagree with appellants as discussed
above with respect to a login procedure disclosed by Brandt in view of the Grimm.
Appellants argue that the examiner has relied upon improper hindsight to
reconstruct the claimed invention. (See brief at page 11.) We disagree with appellants
with respect to independent claim 37 and find that this claim is broader than the
arguments set forth by appellants with respect to independent claim 1. Therefore, these
arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language of independent
claim 37 and not persuasive. Appellants argue that neither Brandt nor Grimm teaches
or suggests a policy object that operates to obtain variable information.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007