Appeal 2006-2936
Application 10/013,714
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In a paper filed February 07, 2007, Appellant requests reconsideration
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from a Decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences dated December 08, 2006 (Decision, hereinafter.)
In the Decision, the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 63.
Appellant contends that the Board overlooked or misapprehended
Appellant’s separate arguments for patentability for dependent claims 4 and
16, 8, 6 and 18, 7 and 19, 27 and 45, 30 and 48, 47, 50, 51 and 5, as they
were not addressed in the Decision. (Request 2-4.)
We grant the Request.
ISSUES
(1) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner failed to establish that
Britton anticipates claims 4 and 16, 8, 6 and 18, 7 and 19, 27 and 45, 30 and
48, 47, 50, 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)?
(2) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner failed to establish that the
combination of Britton and Dan renders claim 5 unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Britton teaches a method for adding property level security to
an object-oriented database. Property access levels are set for each object in
the database such that a user may access a desired property of an object
provided that such property is in the object’s property ACL. (Col. 8,
ll. 20-30.)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013