Appeal 2006-2971
Application 10/015,256
Appellants argue that “[i]ndependent claims 1 and 15 contain features
which are patentably distinguishable from the prior art references of record,
and in particular Sziklai” (Appeal Brief, page 9). Specifically, claims 1 and
15 provide, in part, “… determining whether breaches in security of said
data processing system has [have]2 occurred in each phase of development
of a computer application program.” Examiner proposes that Sziklai
discloses a Java security model, and presents a background Java Web Start
1.4.2 Release Note that is read as preventing unauthorized tampering,
including the automatic detection of breaches in security (Examiner’s
Answer, page 10).
We do not find such a teaching in either the reference Sziklai, or the
background document Java Release Note. The Release Note mentions JREs.
A JRE is a Java Runtime Environment, the operating code that will support
the running of JAWS, which is a type of speech module that can be used in
various JAVA applications. The quoted section of the Release Note
indicates “Every time JAWS is run, it automatically detects all ‘registered’
JREs on the computer.” The teaching that JAWS automatically detects its
runtime environment, for example, to adjust its parameters so it can operate
properly in that runtime environment, does not mean that it detects breaches
in the security of the data processing system whenever new phases of the
computer application program are developed. It seems to indicate only that
the JAWS module adjusts to various installed runtime environments. Thus
the premise that the Java Release Note makes Sziklai’s mention of a Java
security model anticipate the claim limitation is unfounded.
Consider the reading of the Sziklai reference on the claim more
closely. In rejecting Claim 1, when discussing the limitation under
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013