Appeal 2007-1341
Application 09/894,065
i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at 1313, 75
USPQ2d at 1326.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-10,
12-14, 16-21, and 23-31 as being anticipated by McCormack. Reviewing
the findings of facts cited above, we do not agree. In particular, we find that
the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner failed to make a prima
facie showing of anticipation with respect to claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, 16-21,
and 23-31. Appellants failed to meet the burden of overcoming that prima
facie showing.
In addition, as will be discussed, we find (1) that claims 14, 16-20,
and 30 fail to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
and (2) that claims 21, 23-27, and 31 fail to meet the requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we enter new grounds of rejection pursuant to
our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that McCormack does not
disclose or suggest the recited limitation of "upon receipt of a notification
that a new attribute can be searched, dynamically updating the set of
attributes." (Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-3.) We do not agree.
The Examiner found that McCormack teaches this limitation by
teaching polling of the network for changes in network device attributes and
searching on device attributes. (Answer 4; FF 2-3.) The Examiner found
that a change in the value of a previous attribute, as detected during the
polling process, can be interpreted as a "new attribute." (Answer 4, 6-11.)
Appellants argue that McCormack does not disclose receiving or adding a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013