Appeal 2007-1417
Application 09/877,536
the Examiner found that the P3P Note and Curbow teach each and every
limitation of claim 1. We agree.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has shifted the meaning of the
document in Curbow by reading the document on both a data group and a
version of a policy, as claimed. (Br. 17-18.) However, Curbow teaches that
documents are parts and parts can act like documents (FF 3) and teaches that
a text part can be added to a text document (FF 4-5). Thus, the document of
Curbow meets the claim limitations of both a policy version and a data
group used to generate that policy version.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner has given a meaning to the
claim term "generate" that is contrary to the meaning used by one of
ordinary skill in the art because "one of ordinary skill would not consider the
addition of a part to a document to be regenerating the document." (Br. 20.)
However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the addition of a part
to a document meets the claimed limitation of "generating" a version of a
privacy policy.
In addition, Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not equate the "parts" taught by Curbow with the claimed "data
elements" and would not equate the manipulation of the parts taught by
Curbow with the claimed "choices" of which data groups the data elements
are placed into. (Reply Br. 6.) However, Curbow teaches that parts are used
as fundamental building blocks and that parts, such as text parts, may be
combined by user choice. (FF 3-5.) Appellants admit that a P3P policy is a
group of statements stored as text. (Reply Br. 3). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the "P3P note gives meaning to data elements, data groups,
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013