Appeal No. 2005-0742
Application No. 10/274,579
teachings of the two references relied upon for the feature of
displaying a representation of at least one combining policy as
set forth at the end of claim 1 on appeal, the feature in
dispute.
Correspondingly, the examiner appears to take the view at
the bottom of page 14 of the answer that Shasha alone meets the
disputed feature. What the examiner has earlier stated in the
answer to correspond to computational rules, the examiner appears
to also state that the same teachings and showings would lead to
a showing of a combining policy. All this appears to relate to
the various showings illustrated in the numerous portions of
figure 20. If we were to agree with the examiner’s views as to
what comprises computation rules, then we would not be able to
agree with the examiner’s views that the same teachings would
correspond to the claimed combining policy. The same situation
would be true in a vice-versa situation. The examiner must still
provide teachings or showings from the collective teachings and
showings from both references that both claimed features are
taught. We are not persuaded that at least with respect to
Shasha’s teachings and showings alone, there is a teaching of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007