Appeal No. 2006-2354 Page 9
Application No. 09/877,157
23. The appellants admit in the specification that the data elements of the
P3P specification are already known in the prior art:
The [prior art] P3P specification defines the syntax and
semantics of P3P privacy policies and the mechanisms
for associating policies with Web resources. P3P policies
consist of statements made using the P3P vocabulary for
expressing privacy practices. P3P policies also reference
elements of the P3P base data schema – a standard set of
data elements. The P3P specification includes a
mechanism for defining new data elements and data sets
and a simple mechanism that allows for extensions to the
P3P vocabulary. (Specification, page 1, line 27 – page 2,
line 3.)
24. As such, the claimed method merely provides a way to create a
privacy policy using known method steps, as taught by Moriconi and
Abraham, and using known data elements from the P3P specification.
25. Further, the recited step of “generating a privacy policy” is described
in the specification as merely generating a list of all of the selected
data elements in the policy. Specification, page 15, lines 28-30.
26. For example, the specification describes:
[P]olicy pane 430 in Figure 4 shows a list of all the data
elements in the policy. . . . This provides the user with an
immediate description of the state of the policy. The list
of data elements provides a summary of all data elements
in the policy to allow the user to easily match up with, for
example, a Web form that the policy may cover.
(Specification, page 15, line 29 – page 16, line 6.)
As such, the question before us is whether the difference between using the
claimed method to generate a list of data elements relating to privacy as opposed to
a data elements relating to security is unobvious and thus patentable. In other
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007