Appeal 2006-2971
Application 10/015,256
consideration, the Examiner points us to the following sections of the patent
(Examiner’s Answer, page 4): “See abstract; column 9, lines 10-16; column
14, lines 50-62; column 21, lines 65-67; column 33, lines 5-10; column 34,
lines 1-4).” The abstract contains only a general statement concerning
handling changes. Column 9 mentions “security concerns” but not the
breaches at each phase of development. Column 14 addresses tampering by
using non-authenticated code during upgrades, but does not contain a
teaching of determining whether breaches in the security have occurred.
Column 21 presents an edit module of an Administration Menu that
discusses user groups, privileges and other security concerns, but not the
indication of a breach as claimed. Columns 33 and 34 likewise have only
general references to security.
We thus do not find a teaching in the cited reference of the limitation
in claim 1 of “… determining whether breaches in security of said data
processing system has [have]2 occurred in each phase of development of a
computer application program.” Independent claims 8 and 15 contain
parallel language to the quoted language of claim 1, and are subject to the
same reasoning cited above. Since a key limitation of the independent
claims has not been anticipated by the reference, the rejection of the
dependent claims is likewise insufficient. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013