Appeal No. 2005-2668
Application No. 09/765,823
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Oct. 6, 2003) and the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Apr. 6, 2004) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (filed
Jan. 20, 2004) and the Reply Brief (filed Jun. 3, 2004) for appellants’ position with
respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellants submit (Brief at 9) that the claims on appeal that are subject to the
same rejection stand or fall together. Accordingly, consistent with the arguments
presented in the Brief and the rules effective at the time of filing, we select claims 1 and
4 as representative. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003).
The examiner applies the teachings of Hertel and Johnson in the § 103 rejection
against representative claim 1. Appellants argue that none of the cited references, nor
any combination thereof, disclose or suggest the feature that information determined to
be noncompliant with a local policy is nevertheless determined by a central agency to
be compliant with a remote policy. Appellants submit that appellants claim a technique
where the same information (e.g., location) is evaluated for compliance, first with a local
policy and subsequently with a remote policy. According to appellants, Johnson
discloses, in contradiction, a technique in which information of one type (authentication)
is used to override the effect of a second type (alarm). (Brief at 9-11.)
The examiner responds that Johnson discloses alarm conditions in which a
central monitoring station is contacted and sent information regarding the alarm
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007