Ex Parte Chellappan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 1, 2016

13212024 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/212,024 08/17/2011 Natarajan Chellappan IN920110122US1 5427
77351 7590 12/02/2016
IBM CORP. (AUS)
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC
2313 ROOSEVELT DRIVE
SUITE A
ARLINGTON, TX 76016
EXAMINER
WU, FUMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NATARAJAN CHELLAPPAN,
MADHUSUDANAN KANDASAMY,
VIDYA RANGANATHAN, and
LAKSHMANAN VELUSAMY
Appeal 2016-002150
Application 13/212,0241
Technology Center 2100
Before LARRY J. HUME, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23. Appellants have
canceled claims 4, 10, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
See Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002150
Application 13/212,024
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed inventions relate to "domain based
user mapping of objects." Spec. 12.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added):
1. A method, comprising:
responsive to determining that an operation is being
attempted by a user on an object identified with an object
identifier, determining domain identifiers defined for the user,
the domain identifiers indicating domains to which the user
belongs;
accessing domain isolation rules, the domain isolation
rules indicating rules for allowing or disallowing operations to
proceed on objects based on object identifiers and domain
identifiers',
evaluating a domain isolation rule for the object based on
the object identifier to determine whether at least one of the
domain identifiers defined for the user corresponds to a
permitted domain for the object identifier, the permitted domain
indicating that the operation on the object can proceed for the
corresponding domain identifier;
responsive to determining that the operation on the object
can proceed based on the domain isolation rule, accessing user
mapping rules that map specified users allowed to perform a
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
June 9, 2015); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 11, 2015); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 14, 2015); Non-Final Office Action ("Non-
Final Act.," mailed Jan. 9, 2015); and the original Specification ("Spec.,"
filed Aug. 17,2011).
2
Appeal 2016-002150
Application 13/212,024
specified operation to a specified object based on the object
identifier,
determining whether the operation can proceed on the
object by the user based on the user mapping rules by
determining whether the user attempting to perform the
operation on the object is mapped to the object identifier for the
operation; and
responsive to determining that the user is mapped to the
object for the operation based on the object identifier,
permitting the operation to proceed on the object.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Mann et al. ("Mann '439") US 8,375,439 B2 Feb. 12, 2013
Desai et al. ("Desai T91") US 8,429,191 B2 Apr. 23, 2013
Jonathan D. Moffett, Delegation of Authority Using Domain-
Based Access Rules, 1—161 (July 1990) (Corrected Sept. 1990)
(Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology &
Medicine, University of London); (hereinafter "Moffett").
Rejections on Appeal
Rl. Claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Moffett. Ans. 4; Non-Final Act. 2
R2. Claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23 stand rejected under the
judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP)
over claims 1—19 of Desai T91 in view of Moffett. Ans. 12; Non-Final
Act. 8.
R3. Claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23 stand rejected under the
judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP)
3
Appeal 2016-002150
Application 13/212,024
over claims 1—19 of Mann '439 in view of Moffett. Ans. 17; Non-Final
Act. 14.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6—12), we decide the
appeal of anticipation Rejection R1 of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23 on
the basis of representative claim 1.
We address OTDP Rejections R2 and R3 of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14,
and 16—23, infra.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1—3,
5—9, 11—14, and 16—23, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate
such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise
noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
4
Appeal 2016-002150
Application 13/212,024
1. $ 102(b) Rejection R1 of Claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 6—12; Reply Br. 2—5) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Moffett is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses a method
that includes, inter alia, the steps of "accessing domain isolation rules, the
domain isolation rules indicating rules for allowing or disallowing
operations to proceed on objects based on object identifiers and domain
identifiers," and "accessing user mapping rules that map specified users
allowed to perform a specified operation to a specified object based on the
object identifier," as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in relying upon Moffett for
disclosing "domain isolation rules" and "user mapping rules." App. Br. 7—9.
Appellants specifically contend "Moffett appears to instead use the
domain isolation rules (e.g., as set forth in section in. 1.1-2) for
controlling access to objects." App. Br. 8. Further, Appellants argue the
"access matrix" in Moffett Figure II.6
suffers from at least three disadvantages: 1) impracticably large;
2) an untrue assumption of global knowledge of the users and
objects in a system (a full matrix can never be constructed); and
3) the typical case is that a domain of users is desired for giving
access to a domain of objects instead of giving one or more
identified users access to one or more identified objects.
Id. (citing Moffett § II.2.3, pp. 27—28).
5
Appeal 2016-002150
Application 13/212,024
We agree with the Examiner's mapping of both the "domain isolation
rules" and "user mapping rules," and their use in determining whether an
operation on an object can proceed, as variously claimed. See Non-Final
Act. 2—3; Ans. 4—6, 18—19; Moffett § II.2.3, Fig. II.6 (for user mapping
rules), and Moffett § III. 1 and Fig. III.2 (for domain isolation rules).
With respect to the purported disadvantages of Moffett's access matrix
disclosing user mapping rules, Appellants also argue "Moffett explicitly
teaches away from using user mapping rules." App. Br. 9. In response, we
note "[Reaching away is irrelevant to anticipation." Seachange Int’l, Inc., v.
C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the disclosure of the cited
prior art to disclose the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error
in the Examiner's resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 2—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23 which fall therewith. See Claim
Grouping, supra.
2. OTDP Rejection R2 of Claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 5—6) the Examiner's
OTDP Rejection R2 of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23 over claims 1—19
of Desai '191 in view of Moffett is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in combining the teachings of Moffett with
claims 1—19 of Desai '191 to render claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23
6
Appeal 2016-002150
Application 13/212,024
unpatentable, purportedly because "Moffett does not use both domain
isolation rules and the access matrix . . . [and] appears to instead use only
the domain isolation rules Reply Br. 5.
Analysis
We find Appellants' contention is essentially the same as that
presented with respect to Issue 1, claim 1, supra.
For essentially the same reasons addressed above with respect to the
teachings and suggestions of Moffett, we affirm the Examiner's OTDP
Rejection R2 of independent claim 1, and also Rejection R2 of claims 2, 3,
5—9, 11—14, and 16—23, which Appellants do not argue separately with
specificity. Arguments not made are waived.
3. OTDP Rejection R3 of Claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23
Issue 3
Appellants argue (App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 6—8) the Examiner's
OTDP Rejection R3 of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23 over claims 1—19
of Mann '439 in view of Moffett is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in combining the teachings of Moffett with
claims 1—19 of Mann '439 to render claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23
unpatentable, purportedly because "Moffett does not use both domain
isolation rules and the access matrix . . . [and] appears to instead use only
the domain isolation rules ...."? Reply Br. 7.
7
Appeal 2016-002150
Application 13/212,024
Analysis
We find Appellants' contention is essentially the same as that
presented with respect to Issues 1 and 2, claim 1, supra.
For essentially the same reasons addressed above with respect to the
teachings and suggestions of Moffett, we affirm the Examiner's OTDP
Rejection R3 of independent claim 1, and also Rejection R3 of claims 2, 3,
5—9, 11—14, and 16—23, which Appellants do not argue separately with
specificity. Arguments not made are waived.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2—8) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised
in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the
Examiner’s Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to anticipation Rejection
R1 of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the
cited prior art of record, and we sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to OTDP Rejections R2
and R3 of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14, and 16—23 over the cited prior art
combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
8
Appeal 2016-002150
Application 13/212,024
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—14,
and 16—23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9