Ex Parte Kiehn et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 23, 2010

10815052 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 23, 2010)

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.
10/815,052 03/31/2004 Jesper Kiehn M61.12-0615 7946
27366 7590 12/23/2010
WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
HOFFMAN, BRANDON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2010 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 JESPER KIEHN, PAVEL HRUBY, and GEIR OLSEN
____________________

Appeal 2009-007931
Application 10/815,0521
Technology Center 2400

____________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation.
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 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 2009-007931
Application 10/815,052

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3-18, 20-34, and 36-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of providing Resource-
Event-Agent (REA) model based security (Abstract). The REA model is a
prescriptive accounting model that may be implemented in an object-
oriented software programming language that enables model driven software
development for business users using familiar accounting concepts (Spec.
1:10-22, 2:13-15, and 7:6-15). As a first step in the method, an association
is identified between a first object and a second object, where the first object
is an Agent type and the second object is any REA object (Abstract). A
security policy association is assigned to the identified association that
defines the properties of security between the first and second objects
(Abstract; Spec. 23:21-24:6). Finally, the security policy association object
is stored on a computer storage medium (Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of providing Resource-Event-Agent (REA) model based
security, the method comprising:
identifying an REA defined association of a type which dictates
ownership between a first object and a second object in an REA model;
creating an association class object for the REA defined association
between the first object and the second object, the association class object
having properties defining security between the first object and the second
object; and
storing the association class object on a computer storage medium for
use in providing security between the first object and the second object.

2
Appeal 2009-007931
Application 10/815,052

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tingey US 2004/0133583 A1 Jul. 8, 2004
Boozer US 2004/0205355 A1 Oct. 14, 2004

Claims 1, 3-18, 20-34, and 36-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boozer in view of Tingey.

ISSUES
Appellants contend that none of the references discloses a method of
providing Resource-Event-Agent (REA) model based security that includes
“creating an association class object for the REA defined association
between the first object and the second object, the association class object
having properties defining security between the first object and the second
object” (App. Br. 9). Appellants assert that Tingey only briefly mentions a
general concept of security (App. Br. 10). Appellants further argue that
none of the references discloses a control type association or a custody type
association (App. Br. 11-12). Appellants contend that Boozer does not state
that the association between the first and second objects is imposed by the
containment boundary or that “the containment boundary establishes
security rules for the two objects, which would be an association class
object” (App. Br. 13). Appellants assert that the Examiner’s use of the
ipsissimis verbis principle should not apply (App. Br. 14).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following two issues:
1. Do the references disclose a method of providing Resource-Event-
Agent (REA) model based security that includes “creating an association
3
Appeal 2009-007931
Application 10/815,052

class object for the REA defined association between the first object and the
second object, the association class object having properties defining
security between the first object and the second object?”
2. Do the references disclose defining control type associations or
custody type associations between a first and a second object?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. A “control association” type and “custody association” type are
“common” in the conventional REA data model. When an Agent is at one
end of an Association of type "Control," the Agent will be granted rights on
the Class of Objects at the other end. When an Association between a
Resource and an Agent is of type Custody, the Agent will be granted some
default permissions on the Resource (Fig.4; Spec. 18:1-5; 20:1-27).
Boozer
2. Boozer discloses a data access security system 60 for accessing
information stored within a data storage unit. The stored information is
retrieved through resource objects (70, 74, 76, and 78) which are
interconnected through a complex set of relationships or associations 72. By
definition, associations 72 define conceptual relationships between an
instance of one class and an instance of another class (Fig. 2; ¶ [0016]).
3. Boozer discloses that a requester 62 may issue a request for
data from resource object 70 by sending the request to a security request
handler 64 for examination of whether access should be granted to all or any
4
Appeal 2009-007931
Application 10/815,052

of the requested information, as well as what kinds of operations the
requester 62 may perform on that information (Fig. 2; ¶ [0017]).
4. Boozer discloses that the security request handler 64 constructs
a containment boundary 68 around the resource object 70. The containment
boundary 68 defines which objects are containers or parents having access to
object 70. Object security rules 66 help to define the containment boundary
68 by specifying what object associations 72 (corresponding to objects 74,
76, and 78) are to be included in constructing the containment boundary 68.
(Fig. 2; ¶ [0018]).
5. Boozer discloses that the containment boundary 68 may be
established based upon object class where the security rules define how to
traverse from an object of a class to the related object with which it is
associated. (¶¶ [0019] and [0021]).
6. Boozer discloses an example for implementation of a check
authorization process 202 for the security request handler 64 which
determines whether to grant a requester permission to access an object.
Process 202 includes the creation of “access control objects” that specify
whether the system should grant or deny one or more identities access to a
specific requested object. These access control objects can further specify
what kinds of activities an identity can perform on the requested object.
(Figs. 2 and 9; ¶ [0029]).
7. Boozer discloses that specifically during the authorization
process 202 that the security request handler 64 verifies if any access
controls can be located that are directly attached to requested object. If the
security request handler 64 can locate these access controls, it determines
whether any of these pertain to the current requester and to the permission
5
Appeal 2009-007931
Application 10/815,052

sought by the current requester. If these access controls are unrelated to the
current requester, the security request handler 64 verifies if there is a group
which the requester is associated with or whether there is specific
authorization for that requester. If no group or authorization exists for the
current requester, then the object access security rules, stored in “cache”
memory, for the requested object are examined (Figs. 2 and 9; ¶ [0029]).
Tingey
8. Tingey disclose an REA model that uses security “based on
some form of classification” (¶ [0066]).

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-18, 20-34, and 36-39
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Representative claim 1 recites “creating an association class object for
the REA defined association between the first object and the second object,
the association class object having properties defining security between the
6
Appeal 2009-007931
Application 10/815,052

first object and the second object.” Independent claims 18 and 34 disclose a
claim limitation similar in scope.
We do not consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Boozer
discloses associations that are assigned to objects based upon class which
contain security definitions regarding access (Ans. 3). Boozer discloses a
data access security system 60 for accessing information stored within a data
storage unit (FF 2). The stored information is retrieved through resource
objects (70, 74, 76, and 78) which are interconnected through a complex set
of relationships or associations 72 (FF 2). By definition, associations 72
define conceptual relationships between an instance of one class and an
instance of another class (FF 2). A requester 62 may issue a request for data
from resource object 70 by sending the request to the security request
handler 64 for examination of whether access should be granted to all or any
of the requested information, as well as what kinds of operations the
requester 62 may perform on that information (FF 3). The security request
handler 64 constructs a containment boundary 68 around the resource object
70, wherein the containment boundary 68 defines which objects are
containers or parents having access to object 70 (FF 4). Object security
rules 66 help to define the containment boundary 68 by specifying what
object associations 72 are to be included in constructing the containment
boundary 68 (FF 4). Containment boundaries may be established for objects
by setting up object access security rules based on object class that describe
how to traverse from an object of a class to the related object with which it is
associated (FF 5).
7
Appeal 2009-007931
Application 10/815,052

More particularly, Boozer discloses a specific implementation of a
check authorization process for the security request handler 64 that includes
the creation of access control objects which specify whether the system
should grant or deny one or more identities access to a specific requested
object (FF 6 and 7). These access control objects can further specify what
kinds of activities an identity can perform on the requested object (FF 6).
Since the containment boundaries may be constructed by setting up a series
of rules 66, based upon class, it logically follows that the creation of the
access control objects may be established based upon class as well (FF 5 and
6). Accordingly, we find that the creation of access control objects based
upon class discloses the claimed “association class objects” that define the
security properties between a first and second object.
Although Tingey discloses an REA model that uses security “based
on some form of classification,” (FF 8) the Examiner merely relies upon
Tingey to disclose the specific REA data model (Ans. 8, FF 8). Thus, the
combined references disclose a method of providing REA model based
security that assigns access control objects, based upon class, that include
properties defining security between at least two objects. As noted supra,
we find that the “access control objects” perform a similar, if not the same,
function as “association class objects.”
Regarding the claim limitations of control type and custody type
associations, the Specification discloses that these types of associations are
“common” in the conventional REA data model and, thus, are Admitted
Prior Art (FF 1).
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has established the prima facie
obviousness of the claims, because the combination of Boozer and Tingey
8
Appeal 2009-007931
Application 10/815,052

discloses a method of providing Resource-Event-Agent (REA) model based
security that includes “creating an association class object for the REA
defined association between the first object and the second object, the
association class object having properties defining security between the first
object and the second object.” As a result, we will sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of representative claim 1 and that of claims 3-18, 20-34, and
36-39.

CONCLUSIONS
The references disclose a method of providing Resource-Event-Agent
(REA) model based security that includes “creating an association class
object for the REA defined association between the first object and the
second object, the association class object having properties defining
security between the first object and the second object.”
Control type associations or custody type associations between a first
and a second object are admitted prior art features.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-18, 20-34, and 36-39 is
affirmed.
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).

9
Appeal 2009-007931
Application 10/815,052

AFFIRMED

ELD

WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
10