Appeal No. 2006-2354 Page 19
Application No. 09/877,157
Claims 11 and 22
The appellants argue claims 11 and 22 as a group. We treat claim 11 as the
representative claim. The examiner found the subject matter of claim 11 obvious
in view of Moriconi’s teaching of generating a log file, because it was well known
within modern computing systems to automate the generation of error reports from
log files. Answer, p. 4 (citing Moriconi, col. 11, lines 44-46). The appellants
argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited references of generating an
error statement and that the examiner’s reliance on what is “well-known” in the art
is improper. Brief, p. 18.
We agree with the examiner and find that Moriconi teaches a parser/type
checker that reviews and reconstructs the policy rules to check for errors by
making sure that the rules are syntactically and semantically correct according to a
predefined policy language. Moriconi, col. 9, line 66 – col. 10, line 3 and col. 11,
lines 44-47. Moriconi further teaches maintaining an audit log that is accessible by
the administrator via a log viewer in the management station. Moriconi, col. 11,
lines 33-34. While Moriconi describes the audit log data file as containing a log of
information about authorization requests, we find that it would have been implicit
from the teaching of maintaining an audit log accessible by the administrator, and
from the teaching of checking the policy rules for errors, that any such errors
would be recorded in a log for access by the administrator to correct such errors
prior to distributing the policy to the client. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78
USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (quoting In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d
1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The test for an implicit showing is what the
combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007