Appeal No. 2004-1911
Application No. 09/558,387
Based on our findings above, we also agree with Appellants
(brief, page 9) that there is no connection between the risk
assessment of L3 and interviewing users regarding efficiency of
information flow of Cortez. Therefore, by merely speculating and
extending such interviews to information security assessment,
there cannot be any reasonable teaching or suggestion for
combining the applied prior art. Accordingly, as the Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 32-38, 40 and 76-88 over
Cortez and L3.
With respect to the rejection of the remaining claims, the
Examiner further relies on Intelligent Resource Program for
teaching a help desk as the claimed working aid. However,
nothing in this additional reference, alone or in combination
with Cortez and L3, overcomes the deficiencies discussed above
with respect to claim 32. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 41-45 over Cortez, L3 and Intelligent
Resource Program cannot be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007