Ex Parte Godfrey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2014

12188019 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES ANDREW GODFREY,
AXEL FERRAZZINI, and
NICHOLAS P. ALFANO
____________

Appeal 2012-004517
Application 12/188,019
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-004517
Application 12/188,019

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 13–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for managing an access
control list for a data item. See Spec. ¶ 12.
Representative Claim on Appeal
Claim 13 is exemplary with key disputed language highlighted:

13. A method performed by a mobile electronic device, the
method comprising:
receiving a proposed access control list ‘ACL’ from an
endpoint, the proposed ACL specifying access privileges to a
data item of an Open Mobile Alliance ‘OMA’ Device
Management ‘DM’ tree; and
modifying a current ACL that is associated with the data
item of the OMA DM tree to reflect the proposed ACL.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 13–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rygaard (US 2003/0009675 A1, Jan 9, 2003) and
Rao (US 2006/0217113 A1, Sept. 28, 2006). Ans. 6–9.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 10–12), the
principal and dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 13–24 turns on whether the combination of Rygaard and Rao teaches
Appeal 2012-004517
Application 12/188,019

3
or suggests “a proposed ACL specifying access privileges to a data item,”
and “modifying a current ACL . . . to reflect the proposed ACL,” as recited
in independent claim 13.1
Appellants have presented several arguments as to why the
combination of the references does not teach or suggest the features recited
in independent claim 13. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive
response to each argument presented by the Appellants on pages 6 through
17 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and concur with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Therefore, we 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 set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief.
Appellants first argue that Rygaard does not teach “a proposed ACL
specifying access privileges to a data” (hereinafter “privileges” limitation).
Br. 10–11. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that paragraphs 23, 24, and
32 and Figure 5 of Rygaard teach the privileges limitation. Ans. 6, 14–15.
Appellants further argues that Rygaard fails to teach “modifying a
current ACL . . . to reflect the proposed ACL” (hereinafter “modify”
limitation). Br. 11–12.
The Examiner finds, and we agree “Rygaard specifically teaches
updating access control list particularly with respect to mobile devices and
associated applications” (Ans. 6, 15 (citing Rygaard ¶¶ 26, 27, and 31, and
Abstract)). The Examiner further finds, and we agree that “Rao is directed
to managing device profiles in a network environment, more specifically
monitoring, maintaining various mobile device profile information, sharing

1 Independent claim 19 was argued together with claim 13. Br. 10.
Appeal 2012-004517
Application 12/188,019

4
the device management tasks including accessing and updating the
information [Abstract].” Ans. 15 (emphasis ours).
The Examiner also finds, and we agree,
Because both Rygaard, Rao specifically supports wireless
device access control list, it would have been obvious to one of
the ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention
to substitute and/or modify one method for the other to achieve
the predictable result of extracting access control list rights
particularly defining parameters of wireless electronic devices
identifying service providers, electronic devices associated with
authorized service interface, while maintaining updated version
[page 2, 0024], thus improving overall quality and reliability of
the wireless infrastructure and update the electronic devices.
Ans. 16–17.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 13 and 19 and dependent claims 14–18 and 20–24, not
separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 13–24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rygaard and Rao.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13–24.
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).

AFFIRMED
msc