Ex Parte Goldszmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2014

11848405 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GERMAN S. GOLDSZMIDT, DAH-HAUR H. LIN,
ANTHONY J. NADALIN, NATARAJ NAGARATNAM, and
INDRAJIT PODDAR
____________

Appeal 2012-007854
Application 11/848,405
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In papers filed November 15, 2014, Appellants request a rehearing
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from the Decision on Appeal (Decision) of the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), dated November 6, 2014.1 In the
Decision, we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14.
We deny the Request For Rehearing.

1 “The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed
to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1).
Appeal 2012-007854
Application 11/848,405

2
ISSUE
The issue pertinent to this request is whether Appellants have
sustained their burden of showing that we misapprehended the claims and
the disclosure of the cited prior art, and thus erred in sustaining the
rejections of claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1).

ANALYSIS
In our Decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated, we agreed that the Examiner
correctly found that Kuehr-McLaren discloses “aggregation of role-based
authorization rules for both a persistence layer and a logic layer of a multi-
tier application in a unified policy,” as required by the independent claims.
In particular, the Examiner correctly relied on the disclosure in
Kuehr-McLaren of evaluating a user’s access request for a target object by
retrieving an administrative path to the object and role based access
permissions associated with the path, and using a repository of access rules
for any administrative path to a target object. (Dec. 4, citing Ans. 12;
Kuehr-McLaren ¶¶ 18, 20–21.)
In addressing Appellants’ arguments in their Appeal Brief, we noted
that Kuehr-McLaren specifically discloses that the “delegated administrative
path” includes the “assigned security policy for the resource.” (Dec. 4.) In
their Request For Rehearing, Appellants assert that this statement is
mistaken, relying on portions of the reference which allegedly indicate that
the delegated administrative path does not include assigned security policies.
(Req. Reh’g 4–5.) However, Kuehr-McLaren specifically discloses the
Appeal 2012-007854
Application 11/848,405

3
contrary: “The delegated administration path describes the location of the
entity in the organizational hierarchy and contains the security policy for the
entity.” (Kuehr-McLaren ¶ 21.) This constitutes substantial evidence
confirming the Examiner’s findings of anticipation as to this claim element.
In sum, having considered the arguments in the Request For
Reconsideration, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or
overlooked a particular matter in affirming the Examiner’s rejections and we
adhere to our decision to sustain the those rejections.

DECISION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have granted Appellants’
Request to the extent that we have reconsidered the original Decision but
have denied it with respect to making any changes to the Decision.
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)(v).

REHEARING DENIED

msc