Ex Parte Carpenter et al - Page 3

            Appeal 2007-0645                                                                               
            Application 10/242,898                                                                         

        1   pages 3 through 6 of the Answer.  Throughout the opinion we make reference to                  
        2   the Brief and Reply Brief (filed March 13, 2006 and August 4, 2006 respectively),              
        3   and the Answer (mailed June 5, 2006) for the respective details thereof.                       
        4                                        ISSUES                                                    
        5         Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection based upon Prompt in view               
        6   of Sitka under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error.  Specifically, Appellants argue that            
        7   while Sitka discloses that the DSM server provides for security access, Sitka does             
        8   not “disclose or suggest a document vault database storing information regarding               
        9   whether a user is authorized to access a document file or providing a user access to           
       10   a document file via a web server based upon the information regarding whether the              
       11   user is authorized to access the document file, as required by claim 1.” (Br. 5)               
       12         The Examiner contends that the rejection is proper.  The Examiner states                 
       13   that “Sitka teaches ‘security manager 38 interfaces to a DSM security database’ -              
       14   col. 11, lines 40-57 (the security database and algorithm portion providing access             
       15   to information regarding whether the user is authorized to access the documents                
       16   and preventing unauthorized access - col. 9, lies [sic] 37-67).” (Answer 9)                    
       17         Initially, we note that Appellants’ arguments on pages 5 through 7 of the                
       18   Brief recite limitations in independent claims 6, 12, and 18, and broadly state that           
       19   the limitations are not taught by the references.  Appellants’ arguments directed to           
       20   these claims do not provide any specificity as to how the limitations are to be                
       21   interpreted and differentiate from the art, other than what is argued for claim 1.             
       22   37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) states “[a] statement which merely points out what a              
       23   claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the             
       24   claim.”  Thus, we do not consider claims 6, 12, and 18 to be separately argued.                
       25   Further, Appellants have presented no arguments directed to dependent claims                   


                                                     3                                                     


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013