Appeal No. 2005-0476
Application No. 08/848,077
In response the examiner states, on page 51 of the answer, that
Hekmatpour’s statement, in column 3, lines 54-67 “[u]se of an on-line computer
based training methodology would eliminate a back-level problem” teaches the
limitation of identifying a first appliance or one or more resources of the first
appliance, and based on the identification, determining to use a first rule set to
govern a first use of governed information.
We disagree with the examiner. We do not find that Hekmatpour teaches
this limitation. Further, we do not find that the sections of Hekmatpour excerpted
by the examiner, suggest this limitation. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 170 or dependent claims 171, 173,
175, 176 and 177 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Hekmatpour.
The examiner rejects claims 152, 154, 158, 159, 161 through 164, 167,
168, 172 and 174 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Hekmatpour in
view of a combination of Stefik and Halter. These claims all ultimately depend
upon either independent claims 151, 160 and 170. As stated supra, we do not
find that Hekmatpour teaches the limitations claimed in claims 151, 160 and 170.
The examiner has not asserted, nor do we find that either Stefik or Halter teach
the limitations discussed supra with respect to claims 151, 160 and 170.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 152, 154, 158,
159, 161 through 164, 167, 168, 172 and 174 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007