Appeal 2007-1417
Application 09/877,536
The Examiner correctly found that "the P3P privacy policy taught by
P3P Note is a specialized document used for implementing a privacy policy
for a website" and "the more generic document manipulation teachings of
Curbow are entirely applicable and very relevant for the actual
implementation of P3P privacy policies." (Final Office Action mailed
January 19, 2006, at 10; see also FF 1-5.) Therefore, the Examiner found
that the combination of the P3P Note and Curbow was proper "because
Curbow provides specific implementation teachings to extend P3P Note
where it provides a framework, but not a detailed implementation." (Final
Office Action mailed January 19, 2006, at 10.)
Appellants contend that there is no motivation to combine because,
"when all elements of a proposed document are of the same type (e.g., text),
the use of Curbow introduces unnecessary overhead via an architecture that
must be prepared to manage different type of content." (Br. 18; see also
Reply Br. 2-4.) Instead, according to Appellants, one of ordinary skill in
the art would "look to Curbow when there is a need to incorporate different
types of content (e.g., pictures and text) into a single document." (Br. 18;
see also Reply Br. 2-4.) Appellants admit that a P3P policy is "not a multi-
media document, but a document created to conform to the structure set out
in the P3P standards" (Reply Br. 3) and also admit that a P3P policy "is a
group of statements . . . [that] can be in a natural language or in a format that
can be used by a machine, but they remain statements stored as text, not
multimedia" (Reply Br. 3).
Contrary to Appellants' argument, Curbow provides specific examples
of incorporating multiple elements of the same type (i.e., text) into a single
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013