Appeal No. 2006-2354 Page 20
Application No. 09/877,157
the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art.”) Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 11
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 23
With regard to claim 23, the examiner determined that Moriconi discloses an
interface for creating a privacy policy as claimed, except that it does not explicitly
disclose a third portion for displaying a privacy policy generated from the groups
of data elements. The examiner found that Abraham discloses a third portion for
displaying a privacy policy generated from the groups of data elements and further
found that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to combine the method of Moriconi with the method
of Abraham in order to secure management of a computer network. Answer, p. 6.
The appellants contend that Moriconi does not teach or suggest an interface
having a portion for displaying predefined data elements or a portion for displaying
groups of data elements. Brief, p. 18. The appellants further contend that
Abraham merely teaches using a graphical user interface to allow a user to input
information and does not teach or suggest an interface having a portion for
displaying a privacy policy generated from the groups of data elements. Brief, p.
19. The appellants argue that even when the teachings of Moriconi and Abraham
are combined, there is still no teaching or suggestion of an interface having the
three portions as claimed. Brief, p. 19.
We find that graphical user interface depicted in Figures 6 and 8O of
Abraham discloses all of the elements of claim 23. A disclosure that anticipates
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007