Appeal No. 2004-1911
Application No. 09/558,387
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner must not only identify the
elements in the prior art, but also show “some objective teaching
in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art would lead the individual to combine
the relevant teachings of the references.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Upon a review of Cortez, we remain unpersuaded by the
Examiner’s characterization of the assessment of disclosed user
interviews as the claimed security assessment of a domain based
on the user responses. Cortez, in fact, interviews users for
assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of information flow
within the organization (abstract and “Introduction”). On the
other hand, what the Examiner characterizes (answer, page 5) in
pages 5-8 of L3 as the claimed querying to determine the
enterprise type, the domains within the enterprise and users
areas of expertise is merely arranging assets, tasks and
objectives according to a set of predetermined risk levels
associated with their values. Therefore, assessing the
information security in L3 would not be dependent on responses
from user groups.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007