Appeal No. 2006-2936
Application No. 10/013,714
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), is the Rejection of Claims 1
through 4, 6 through 10, 13 through 16, 18 through 21, 24
through 30, 32 through 35, 40, 44 through 48, 50 through 53,
58, 62 and 63 as Being Anticipated By Britton Proper?
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to representative claim 1, Appellant argues in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs3 that the Britton reference does not
disclose the limitation of making a data access permission
setting for the program which accesses the database storing sets
of data for each of which a security level setting is made.
Particularly, at pages 10 and 11 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant
states the following:
There is no teaching or suggestion in Britton that
is directed to making a data access permission setting
for the program. Britton only discusses regulating
user access.
The Examiner appears to be erroneously
interpreting the claim term “program” as a “user”.
Appellant respectfully submits that this is an
3 Appellant reiterates these same arguments at the oral hearing held on
November 15, 2006.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007