Appeal 2007-0459
Application 10/285,927
We find the recited language of “access analysis by comparing said
access attribute with said secrecy attribute” broadly but reasonably reads on
the user login disclosed by Liddy (col. 27, l. 65). We find Liddy’s user login
necessarily involves access analysis by comparing an access attribute (i.e., a
user login ID and/or password) with a secrecy attribute (i.e., a corresponding
user login ID and/or password), where the “secrecy attribute” is stored on
the computer to be accessed. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 9 as being anticipated by Liddy.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to claims 10-13 on the basis of the selected claim alone.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being
anticipated by Liddy for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
representative claim 9.
Claims 31 and 32
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 32 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 independent claim 31 as the representative claim for
this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that no portion of Liddy, including the portion cited
by the Examiner, teaches or suggests monitoring communications for
predetermined search parameters, as required by the language of
independent claim 31. Appellants further argue that matching a query to a
database is not that same as “monitoring communications for predetermined
parameters,” as claimed (Br. 13).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013