Appeal No. 2006-2509
Application No. 10/001,431
information depicted in Figures 4A through 5B is presented as English text (e.g., text in
payload 404 of Fig. 4A; policy represented in Fig. 5A). Further, the information may be
collected and presented to a human viewer (e.g., ¶ 30), which indicates that the files are
stored in human-readable form. Moreover, the various policies with respect to particular
viruses are not machine-generated, but human-generated. One can reasonably
assume that the policies are not converted to some form that is readable only by a
machine, at least for the reason that human-readable files would facilitate updating of
the policies provided by remote administrator 138 (Fig. 1), which may reside in a
relational database (¶ 48).
Appellants also allege that even if the reference may be considered to describe a
file both human and machine-readable, the information shown does not meet the
language specifying the contents of the file as recited in claims 1 and 12. However,
appellants in the Brief consider only the policies shown in Figures 5A and 5B of
Chefalas, rather than all the data that the examiner finds to comprise the VDL file as
claimed. Further, in response to the examiner’s additional findings in the Answer,
appellants return to the argument that the data is not “human-readable and machine-
readable.” Appellants thus do not persuade us of error in the rejection of claims 1 and
12.
Moreover, we observe that claim 1 and claim 12 are drawn to respective
methods of generating a file. Appellants’ arguments regarding the content of the files
are not persuasive because the content of the files is in the form of what has come to be
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007