Appeal 2007-2116
Application 10/318,000
use of an LDAP protocol was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Freeman, and of claims 6, 13, 14, and 20 not separately
argued.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-4, 8-12, 16-19, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and the rejection of claims 5, 6, 13, 14, and 20 under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) over Freeman are affirmed. The rejection of claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Freeman and Prasad is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
pgc
IBM CORP (YA)
C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS TX 75380
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013