Appeal 2006-0272
Application 10/024,964
same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claims 1 and 17,
respectively.
Independent claim 10
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10 as
being anticipated by Brown.
Appellants argue Brown does not teach: (1) “receiving a document,”
(2) “determining an authorization level required to view the complete
received document,” and (3) “determining an authorization level associated
with a current user,” as claimed. In particular, Appellants argue Brown’s
web browser, which “receives” the document, does not “determine an
authorization level” required to view the complete document or the current
user because the determination has already been made by Brown’s server
(Br. 12, emphasis in original).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that user access right
information (ARI) received from Brown’s server is used in combination
with ARI tag(s) and the ARI plugin application (i.e., on the client side) to
determine whether a user may be granted the access requested (Answer 6).
We note Appellants have admitted in their argument that Brown
discloses “receiving a document” (see Br. 12, ¶1, l. 4). We find Appellants’
argument misplaced that Brown’s web browser (i.e., client) does not
determine an authorization level. We note the broad language of the claim
does not specify what entity (e.g., client or server or anything else) performs
the steps of: “determining an authorization level required to view the
complete received document,” and “determining an authorization level
associated with a current user” (Claim 10). In particular, we find the broad
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013