Appeal No. 2006-2936
Application No. 10/013,714
database. Consequently, we do not find error in the Examiner’s
stated position, which concludes that Britton teaches 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.
It is therefore our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would have suggested to the ordinarily skilled
artisan the invention as set forth in claim 1. Accordingly, we will
sustain the Examiner’s 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.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 5, 11, 12,
17, 22, 23, 31, 36 through 39, 41 through 43, 49, 54 through 57,
and 59 through 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over combinations of Britton, Dan, Swift, Morcos, Hitz, and Huang
Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007