Appeal 2006-0272
Application 10/024,964
note a “server” is not claimed. Furthermore, the broad language of the claim
does not specify what entity (e.g., client or server or anything else) performs
the step of “determining an authorization level associated with the source of
the request,” and “determining an authorization level required to view the
requested document” (Claim 1). We note that patentability is based upon the
claims. “It is the claims that measure the invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita
Elec. Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 585 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (en banc). A basic canon of claim construction is that one may not
read a limitation into a claim from the written description. Renishaw plc v.
Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1120
(Fed. Cir. 1998). In the instant case, because we find Brown discloses all
that is claimed, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 1 as being anticipated by Brown. Because independent claim 17
recites language equivalent to the language of claim 1, we will also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as being anticipated by Brown for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 5, 7-9, 18, 21-24, and 26
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 2, 5, 7-9, 18, 21-24, and
26. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to the dependent
claims, those claims stand or fall with the representative independent claim.
See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being anticipated by Brown for the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013