Appeal 2007-0474
Application 10/692,885
1 the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
2 1350, 1355, 59 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of
3 specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to
4 reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a
5 need for testimony is not shown’” (internal citation omitted)).
6 Furthermore, Appellants have presented no secondary considerations
7 of non-obviousness for our consideration.
8
9 Anticipation Issue
10 Issue A: Whether Knutson expressly or inherently discloses a
11 plurality of folders comprising links to particular data files stored in
12 the data storage component, the content of the folders controlled at
13 least in part by end-user specified preferences, the folders include any
14 type of link collection defined by a set of relationships, as set forth in
15 Appellants’ claim 1.
16
17 Appellants contend that with respect to Knutson, the Examiner has
18 been unable to correlate and provide the necessary interconnection between
19 disparate and unrelated items disclosed in Knutson so as to follow the strict
20 identity requirement required to substantiate a § 102 rejection (Br. 8:7-10).
21 Specifically, Appellants contend that:
22 (1) “…the cited document…,
23 (a) provides a client subsystem having as one of its
24 components a folder management subsystem (rather than a plurality of
25 folders)…” (Br. 5:8-10).
26 (b) “…a message code (instead of a plurality of folders)
27 is linked to both sending and receiving processes…” (Br. 5:10-11).
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013