Appeal No. 2004-1911
Application No. 09/558,387
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Cortez et al. (Cortez), “Information Policy Audit: A Case Study
of an Organizational Analysis Tool,” Special Libraries
Association, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 88-97, (Spring 1996).
Intelligent Resource Program, “Pilot Information Security
Assurance Site Is On Line,” (September 1997).
“L3 Network Security, Evaluation Guide” (L3), L-3 Communications
Network Security Systems, LLC, (1999).
Claims 32-38, 40 and 76-88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cortez and L3.
Claims 41-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cortez, L3 and Intelligent Resource
Program.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 23, mailed
January 22, 2004) for the Examiner’s reasoning and to the appeal
brief (Paper No. 22, filed November 12, 2003) for Appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The focus of Appellants’ arguments is that Cortez does not
teach or suggest interviewing users for assessing information
security and merely mentions information security policy as a
side issue (brief, page 6). Appellants further assert that L3
merely discloses a risk assessment and security planning tool
without even suggesting that an enterprise type is identified or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007