Ex Parte Hornkvist et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2014

11499485 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2014)

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.
11/499,485 08/04/2006 John Hornkvist 04860.P4456 2545
45217 7590 12/15/2014
APPLE INC./BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
ARJOMANDI, NOOSHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2014 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 JOHN HORNKVIST and YAN ARROUYE
____________

Appeal 2012-004809
Application 11/499,485
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7-19, 21, 22-28, 50-54, 56-68, 70-77, and 99-101. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2012-004809
Application 11/499,485

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “systems and methods for
indexing and searching data, such as file contents and/or metadata”
(Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A machine implemented method of processing data comprising:
creating a searchable index including a first subindex and a second
subindex, wherein the first subindex corresponds to files in a user's folder
and the second subindex corresponds to files outside the user's folder and
wherein the user has permission to access files in the user's folder;
receiving a search query from a user;
performing a search of the index, based on the search query, wherein
the search generates first results from the first subindex and second results
from the second subindex;
displaying the first results without performing a permissions check on
the first results;
performing, by a data processing system, a permissions check upon
the second results, wherein the permissions check comprises determining if
the user has permission to access files in the second results;
filtering the second results using results of the permissions check; and
displaying the filtered second results.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5,7, 8, 10-19, 21, 22, 24-27, 50-54,
56, 57, 59-68, 70, 71, 73-76, and 99-101 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Kahn (US 7,185,192 B1) and Talib (US 2001/0044837
A1).
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 23, 28, 58, 72, and 77 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kahn, Talib, and Lee (US
2007/0027856 A1).
Appeal 2012-004809
Application 11/499,485

3
ANALYSIS
Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding Kahn discloses
“displaying the first results without performing a permissions check on the
first results” (emphasis added) as claimed (Ans. 17-18; App. Br. 11).
In response, the Examiner finds a “disregard instruction that specifies
no disregard criteria will cause rule processing to stop completely, . . .
.Therefore, . . . when the system administrator configures that the requester
is a CEO no more permission check” will be done (Ans. 18). We do not
agree.
As Appellants contend, Kahn teaches selecting a subset of rules for
performing a check of “whether or not to grant the requested access to the
resource” (App. Br. 12). Thus, rule selection is fundamental to how Kahn
functions; that is, rule selection in Kahn is done to “perform a check of
whether or not to grant the requested access to the resource,” i.e., performing
a permission check (id.; Reply Br. 3-4). Further, contrary to the Examiner’s
finding (Ans. 17), we agree with Appellants that Kahn’s “DISREGARD”
instruction merely limits the extent of the permission check performed by a
requestor; it does not disclose displaying the first results without performing
a permission check on the first results as claimed (Reply Br. 4).
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-5,7, 8, 10-19, 21, 22, 24-27, 50-54, 56, 57, 59-68, 70, 71, 73-76,
and 99-101, or claims 9, 23, 28, 58, 72, and 77, as Lee was not cited to cure
the deficiencies of Kahn.

Appeal 2012-004809
Application 11/499,485

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-19, 21, 22-28, 50-54,
56-68, 70-77, and 99-101 is reversed.

REVERSED

lv