Appeal 2007-1417
Application 09/877,536
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Curbow 5,669,005 Sep. 16, 1997
"The Platform for Privacy Preferences," W3C, November 1998, pp. 1-19,
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-P3P-CAM, (P3P Note)
Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the P3P Note and Curbow.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.2
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). That is, given the
teachings of the prior art, have Appellants shown that the differences
between the claims and the prior art are sufficient to render the claimed
subject matter unobvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the
invention was made?
2 Except as will be noted in this opinion, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the
dependent claims or related claims in each group. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013