Appeal 2007-0459
Application 10/285,927
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 2-8 and 14-30. 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)(2004). Therefore, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed supra
with respect to independent claim 1.
Claims 9-13
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-13 as being
anticipated by Liddy. Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this
rejection have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall
together, we will select dependent claim 9 as the representative claim for this
rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants note that the language of claim 9 requires a “secrecy
attribute, an access attribute, and an access analysis … wherein said search
subsystem provides for generating said access analysis by comparing said
access attribute with said secrecy attribute” (claim 9). Appellants argue that
Liddy does not disclose any of these limitations (Br. 14).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner finds the argued limitations
read on Liddy’s disclosure of user interactions before the query is processed
(i.e., login, data selection, and query construction) (col. 27, ll. 63-67) as well
as Liddy’s disclosure of users selecting a range of data sources (col. 29, l. 3)
(Answer 14).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013