Appeal No. 2006-2936
Application No. 10/013,714
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
With respect to claims 5, 11, 12, 17, 22, 23, 31, 36 through
39, 41 through 43, 49, 54 through 57, and 59 through 62,
Appellant argues in the Appeal and Reply Briefs that Britton does
not teach the claimed invention. Particularly, Appellant asserts
that Britton does not teach the limitation of 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. We have already addressed this
argument in the discussion of claim 1 above, and we disagree with
Appellant. Further, Appellant argues that none of the secondary
or tertiary references, Dan, Swift, Morcos, or Hitz, cures the
deficiencies of Britton. We find no such deficiencies in Britton
for the cited references to cure. It is therefore our view, after
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007