Appeal 2007-0463
Application 09/896,537
their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to
fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. . . . A person
of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Appellants have not pointed out any error in the Examiner’s rationale that
the artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Eyer and Arazi
in order to reduce overhead. Instead, after quoting (Br. 19-20) the Examiner’s
rationale, they cite Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (BPAI 1985) for the
proposition that the Examiner bears the burden of “present[ing] a convincing line
of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have
been obvious in light of the teaching of the references” (Br. 20) and then simply
assert “that the Examiner has failed to meet this burden, and maintain that both
Eyer and Arazi lack the suggestion or motivation for combination” (id.).
Finally, Appellants argue that Eyer does not disclose “content comprising a
set of attributes having L through N levels of access,” as required by claim 1, and
that Arazi does not cure this defect (id.). This argument is unconvincing for the
reasons given above in the discussion of the anticipation rejection.
Because Appellants have failed to point out any error in the Examiner’s
position, we are affirming the § 103(a) rejection with respect to claim 3 and also
with respect to claims 13, 16, and 22, which are not separately argued.
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013