Appeal No. 2006-2354 Page 5
Application No. 09/877,157
components by use of a security policy, and that security and privacy are different
concepts such that the teaching of a security policy in Moriconi does not teach or
suggest a privacy policy as claimed. Brief, p. 12. The appellants presented
evidence demonstrating the differences between security and privacy policies and
services. Brief, pp. 12-13 (discussing evidence in Appendices A-C). The
appellants further argue that even if Moriconi discloses enforcement of a privacy
policy, claim 1 is not directed to enforcement, but rather it is directed to
establishment or creation of a privacy policy. Brief, p. 14. As such, the appellants
contend that the examiner has failed to establish any teaching or suggestion in the
prior art of creating a privacy policy, or any step of creating a privacy policy based
on a policy group. Brief, p. 14.
To determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established, we are guided by the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966), viz., (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the art.1
We first turn to the scope and content of the prior art and make the following
findings of fact.
1. Our review of the prior art relied upon by the examiner, shows that
Moriconi discloses a method for creating a security policy that
includes creating a policy group, moving a data element to a policy
group, and generating a security policy based on the policy group.
1 Although Graham also suggests analysis of secondary considerations such as commercial
success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., the appellants presented no such
evidence of secondary considerations for the Board’s consideration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007