Ex Parte Edwards et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2008

10202816 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte NIGEL J. EDWARDS and JASON ROUAULT
________________

Appeal 2007-3921
Application 10/202,816
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided: March 31, 2008
________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We REVERSE.

Appeal 2007-3921
Application 10/202,816

THE INVENTION
The disclosed invention relates generally to multi-domain
authorization and authentication. More particularly, Appellants’ invention
relates to techniques for allowing users of one domain to access information
that is located on another domain or domains.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of multi-domain authorization/authentication
on a computer network comprises:
a user making a request to a policy enforcement point
(PEP) of a computer for access to a service on the computer of
a first domain which requires authorisation [sic.]for access from
a second domain:

providing a location address for a meta policy decision
point (MPDP) maintaining the user’s authorisation [sic.] and/or
authentication information provided from different issuing
authorities, at which address authorisation [sic.] and/or
authentication information and/or further personal information
of the user has been pre-stored at a remote location;

a policy decision point (PDP) of the service on the
computer network then verifying the authorisation
[sic.]/authentication information received from the MPDP or
seeking authorisation [sic.]/authentication from an address
received from the MPDP, the address provided in the pre-stored
authorisation [sic.]/authentication/further personal information;
and

the user being given access by the PEP to the information
or the service requested, if the request is accepted, wherein the
MPDP is hosted by a party independent from the user.

2
Appeal 2007-3921
Application 10/202,816

THE REFERENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence in
support of the rejection:
Schell US 6,615,350 Sep. 2, 2003

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Schell.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses,
either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that
claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medics Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368,
1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). To anticipate, every element and
limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art
reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf
Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research
Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

ISSUE(S)
We decide the question of whether Appellants have shown the
Examiner erred in holding that the cited Schell reference anticipates the
claimed subject matter. More particularly, we have determined that the
following issue is dispositive in this appeal:
3
Appeal 2007-3921
Application 10/202,816

Whether Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in finding
that Schell teaches providing a location address for a meta
policy decision point (MPDP) maintaining the user’s
authorization and/or authentication information provided from
different issuing authorities, at which address authorization
and/or authentication information has been stored, as required
by the language of independent claim 1, and also the equivalent
language found within independent claims 2, 4, and 25.

ANALYSIS
Claim Construction
“[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’”
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Here, the Examiner broadly interprets the
recited element “meta policy decision point” (hereinafter “MPDP”) as an
example of metadata (i.e., data about data). The Examiner further asserts
that metadata is structured, encoded data that describes characteristics of
information-bearing entities to aid in the identification, discovery,
assessment and management of the described entities. (Ans. 11, ll. 1-6). The
Examiner construes the claimed policy decision point (PDP) as referring to
the allow/deny decision that occurs as the last step in authorization (Ans. 11,
ll. 6-8). The process of authorization uses a provided identifier to, inter alia,
collect attributes associated with that identifier and access rules appropriate
to the policy decision point and apply rules to the attributes, resulting in a
binary allow/deny access decision (Id.).
4
Appeal 2007-3921
Application 10/202,816

In reviewing the record before us, we disagree with the Examiner’s
interpretation of the aforementioned MPDP as metadata. We broadly but
reasonably interpret the “meta policy decision point” as an entity that stores
authorization and/or authentication information provided from different
issuing authorities (See claim 1). This interpretation is consistent with the
features recited in claim 1, and is also consistent with Appellants’
Specification (See Spec. 21 l. 1 – 22 l. 18).
We note that Appellants have described a “Policy Decision Point”
(PDP) as an entity that can be used to store and/or access information and
make decisions about users of a particular domain, e.g., the user’s roles and
entries as to what parts of the system that user can access (See Spec. 2, ll. 1-
10).
Elements under § 102
Independent Claims 1, 2, 4, and 25
Appellants contend that Schell fails to teach the element of “providing
a location address for a meta policy decision point (MPDP) maintaining the
user’s authorization and/or authentication information provided from
different issuing authorities, at which address authorization and/or
authentication information and/or further personal information of the user
has been pre-stored at a remote location,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8).
Thus, Appellants contend that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of anticipation.
As discussed above, to anticipate, every element and limitation of the
claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference. We agree
with Appellants’ assertion that the Examiner’s interpretation of the meta
policy decision point (MPDP) as metadata is inconsistent with the
5
Appeal 2007-3921
Application 10/202,816

limitations recited in claim 1 (Reply Br. 2, ll. 7-17). In light of our
interpretation of the claimed MPDP as discussed above, we agree with
Appellants’ that Schell fails to disclose the meta policy decision point
(MPDP) recited in each of independent claims 1, 2, and 4. In addition, even
if we adopt the Examiner’s interpretation of the MPDP as a type of
metadata, we find that Schell is silent regarding “metadata.”
Regarding each of independent claims 1, 2, 4, and 25, we also agree
with Appellants’ assertion that Schell fails to teach providing a location
address, as claimed (Reply Br. 3, ll. 6-9). The Examiner asserts that in order
to obtain access to the desired information, the location of the information
will be well-known by the system and, as is known in the art, devices and
storage locations within a network environment contain, inter alia, location
information in the form of a MAC address, an IP address, or other such
identifications (Ans. 11, l. 15 – 12, l. 8). The Examiner further notes that a
MAC address is a hardware address that uniquely identifies each node on a
network, and also that every machine on a network (i.e., a local network, or
the Internet, which is a larger network) has a unique IP address (Ans. 11, l.
15 – 12, l. 8). However, we agree with Appellants that Schell fails to
disclose providing a location address for a meta policy decision point
(MPDP) (see independent claims 1, 2, and 4), or “a location address
independent from a user for the user’s authorisation [sic.] and/or
authentication information provided from different issuing authorities,” as
claimed (see independent claim 25). We further agree with Appellants’
arguments regarding a lack of a nexus between the portions of Schell that
were cited by the Examiner as purportedly teaching the elements of the
independent claims (Reply Br. 3, ll. 13-15).
6
Appeal 2007-3921
Application 10/202,816

For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have met their burden of showing error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of
anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 2, 4 and 25 as being anticipated by Schell since the Examiner has
not set forth a proper initial showing of anticipation.

Dependent Claims 3 and 5-24
Claims 3 and 5-24 depend directly or indirectly from independent
claims 1, 2, and 4. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims as being anticipated by Schell for the same reasons discussed above
regarding independent claims 1, 2, and 4.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation.

7
Appeal 2007-3921
Application 10/202,816

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-25 is reversed.

REVERSED

pgc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Propety Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins CO 80527-2400
8