Appeal No. 2006-2354 Page 15
Application No. 09/877,157
otherwise used or manipulated by the claimed method. As such, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 12, and 24 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
The appellant did not separately argue the patentability of the rejected
dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, and 20. Rather, the appellant relied on his
arguments for patentability of claims 1 and 12. As such, we treat claims 2, 3, 8, 9,
13, 14, 19, and 20 as standing or falling together with their respective independent
claims.
Claims 4 and 15
The appellants argue claims 4 and 15 as a group. We treat claim 4 as the
representative claim. The appellants contend that none of the cited references
suggest the claimed steps of updating a policy-wide property, and generating the
privacy policy based on the policy-wide property. Brief, p. 15. We find that
Abraham describes a method for allowing a system administrator to set policies,
e.g., file type policies that prevent groups and users from downloading certain
types of files, which can be policy-wide. Abraham, page 37, lines 7-10 (policy
becomes policy-wide if the administrator selects to apply it to the root group). As
discussed above in our discussion of claim 1, the system of Abraham then
generates the policy based on the settings selected by the administrator. As such,
we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 15.
Claims 5 and 16
The appellants argue claims 5 and 16 as a group. We treat claim 5 as the
representative claim. The examiner rejected claim 5 on the grounds that although
Moriconi does not expressly teach the step of generating a human-readable version
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007