Appeal 2007-0463
Application 09/896,537
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).2 Similarly, because the claims rejected for obviousness
are argued as a group, we will consider only claim 3 as to that ground of rejection.
Id.
THE ISSUES3
1. Does Eyer disclose content comprising a set of attributes having L
through N levels of access, as recited in claim 1?
2. Has the Examiner established that the subject matter of claim 3 would
have been obvious over Eyer in view of Arazi?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW REGARDING ANTICIPATION
Application claims are interpreted as broadly as is reasonable and consistent
with the specification, “taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained
2 The brief was filed in April 2006.
3 The issues as stated herein represent the contentions of Appellants, who
have the burden on appeal to the Board to point out the errors in the Examiner’s
position. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1035
(Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[W]e expect that the Board's anticipation analysis be conducted
on a limitation by limitation basis, with specific fact findings for each contested
limitation and satisfactory explanations for such findings.") (emphasis added); In
re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“On
appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [for obviousness] by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima
facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013