Ex Parte Fukui

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 18, 2011

10767780 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 18, 2011)

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.
10/767,780 01/28/2004 Shingo Fukui P/1878-188 5531
2352 7590 02/22/2011
OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN
1180 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 100368403
EXAMINER
DARNO, PATRICK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SHINGO FUKUI
____________________

Appeal 2009-0081871
Application 10/767,780
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 According to this record, U.S. application filed January 28, 2004, claiming
priority benefit of a foreign application filed January 29, 2003.”
. The real party in interest is NEC Corp. (App. Br. 1.)
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-008187
Application 10/767,780

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-37. (App. Br. 2.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and apparatus for managing an
availability condition for each of a plurality of nodes sequentially arranged
in a tree from a root node to a plurality of leaf nodes. The availability
condition of a node can be changed at multiple nodes along a selected path
of the tree from root to leaf. The number of times for changing the
availability condition is limited to a maximum of one along the selected
path. (Abstract, Spec. 24, ll. 6-14.)

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. An information sharing method for holding
information owned by at least one unit user on a storage device
in a tree structure provided for each unit user, said tree structure
including a plurality of nodes sequentially arranged from a
home root node to a plurality of leaf nodes, such that said
information corresponds to each of said nodes to manage an
availability condition of each of said nodes, said method
comprising:
Appeal 2009-008187
Application 10/767,780

3
a first step in which a computer refers to the availability
condition of each of said nodes on said storage device in
response to an availability condition manipulation request for
changing the availability condition of one of said nodes, to
determine whether or not said availability condition
manipulation request can be executed while satisfying a
condition that while the availability condition can be changed at
multiple nodes of the tree structure, the number of times of
changes in the availability condition is limited to one at
maximum along any of paths from said home root node to any
one of the plurality of leaf nodes;

a second step in which said computer executes the
availability condition manipulation request such that said
condition is satisfied when the availability condition
manipulation request is determined as executable in said first
step, and provides a determination that the availability
condition manipulation request is not executable when the
availability condition manipulation request is determined as not
executable in said first step; and

a third step in which said computer refers to said
availability condition in response to a tree structure
manipulation request for modifying said tree structure, and
executes the tree structure manipulation request such that said
condition continues to be satisfied.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:

Fairweather US 2003/0187854 A1 Oct. 2, 2003

Appeal 2009-008187
Application 10/767,780

4
Michael M. Swift, et al. (Swift), “Improving the Granularity of Access
Control for Windows 2000”, Proceedings of the 6th ACM Symposium on
Access Control Models and Technology (SACMAT 01) (Chantilly, Va.,
May), ACM, New York, (2001).

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1-8, 18, 20-27, 35 and 37 stand rejected as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Swift.
2. Claims 9-17 and 28-34 stand rejected as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Swift and Admitted Prior
Art.
3. Claims 19 and 36 stand rejected as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Swift and Fairweather.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant mainly argues, inter alia, that Swift does not teach an
availability condition of a node can be changed at multiple nodes of a tree
structure, wherein the number of changes in the availability condition is
limited to a maximum of one along any selected path from a root node to a
leaf node, as recited in independent claim 1. (App Br. 6-7.) According to
Appellant, Swift teaches changing the access control to each individual
object numerous times and in one place along a path from a root node to a
leaf node, whereas independent claim 1 requires changing the availability
condition at multiple nodes and only once along a selected path. (Id. at 7-8.)
Appeal 2009-008187
Application 10/767,780

5
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Swift’s disclosure of changing the access
control of a node at a single point and propagating the change from a root to
a leaf node along a selected path teaches the disputed limitations. (Ans. 17-
19.)
II. ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Swift
describes an availability condition of a node can be changed at multiple
nodes of a tree structure, wherein the number of changes in the availability
condition is limited to a maximum of one along any selected path from a
root node to a leaf node, as recited in independent claim 1?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Swift
1. Swift discloses a system for allowing administrators to set and change
access control at a single point in an Active Directory, and to subsequently
propagate the change to other nodes below the single point. If the change is
made at the root of the tree, the system overwrites all changes in lower nodes
of the tree. (P. 11, section 2.4, ll. 4-7; p. 17, ll. 15-21.)
2. Swift’s disclosed system allows the administrators to evaluate a single
access control list (ACL) at the single point in the directory to thereby
reduce the number of entries that must be inspected, and to lower costs since
Appeal 2009-008187
Application 10/767,780

6
ACLs along the whole path need not be evaluated. (P. 16, ll. 42-44, p. 18, ll.
22-23.)
3. Swift discloses type-specific inheritance and static-specific
inheritance for allowing administrators to propagate changes made at the
single point in the directory to other objects placed below the single point in
the hierarchy of objects. (P. 25, section 4.5, ll. 1-10.)

IV. ANALYSIS
We do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
1, which requires, inter alia, an availability condition of a node can be
changed at multiple nodes of a tree structure, wherein the number of changes
in the availability condition is limited to a maximum of one along any
selected path from a root node to a leaf node.
As set forth in the Findings of Facts section, Swift discloses allowing
administrators to effectuate an access status change in a tree at a single point
thereon to subsequently propagate the change to lower placed objects along
the same hierarchical path to subsequently overwrite all changes in lower
nodes. (FF. 1 and 3.) Swift further discloses evaluating a single ACL at the
single point to reduce the extraneous costs and time associated with multiple
evaluations. (FF. 2.) We find that by propagating to lower placed nodes a
change made at a single point of the directory (e.g. the root node) to
overwrite changes in the lower nodes, Swift discloses that the change can be
made at multiple nodes along a hierarchy. In other words, by writing at the
lower nodes the change entered at the root node, Swift discloses that the
Appeal 2009-008187
Application 10/767,780

7
propagated access status change or availability condition is in effect changed
at more than one node. Next, we find that upon propagating the change
from root to leaf, all nodes within that path are updated only once since the
propagation is done only one-way (root to leaf.) We are thus in agreement
with the Examiner that Swift’s disclosure describes the disputed limitations.
It follows that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s finding that
Swift anticipates independent claim 1.
Because Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1-37 as a single
group, claims 2-37 fall with claim 1 in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

V. SUMMARY
Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-37. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejections as set forth
above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

Vsh

Appeal 2009-008187
Application 10/767,780

8
OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN
1180 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK NY 10036-8403