Appeal 2006-0272
Application 10/024,964
language of the claim does not preclude determining an authorization level
at a location separate from the location of the received document.
Therefore, we find the language of the claim broadly but reasonably reads
on the Brown reference regardless of whether Brown performs authorization
on the client or the server, or some combination of both. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 10 as being
anticipated by Brown.
Claims 11, 14-16, and 25
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 11, 14-16, and 25. 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 at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. 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 same reasons discussed
supra with respect to independent claim 10.
OTHER ISSUES
Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner’s attention is
directed to the extremely broad language of independent claims 1 and 10
where any entity (e.g., machine or person) may perform the recited steps of
the method. If granted patented status, it might be argued the sweeping
language of claims 1 and 10 would amount to a preemption of all possible
means of performing the steps of the method. Thus, it might also be argued
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013