Ex Parte Koved et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 6, 2012

10002439 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LAWRENCE KOVED, ANTHONY JOSEPH NADALIN,
NATARAJ NAGARATNAM, MARCO PISTOIA,
and BRUCE ARLAND RICH
____________________

Appeal 2009-013663
Application 10/002,439
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013663
Application 10/002,439

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1 and 6 under appeal read as follows:
1. A method of controlling access to computer system
resources based on permissions, comprising:
receiving a request for access to a computer system
resource;
determining if a superclass permission of a required
permission is present in each protection domain of an access
control context, wherein the superclass permission is a super
class of the required permission;
adding the required permission to a permission collection
if the superclass permission of the required permission is
present in each protection domain of the access control context;
and
granting access to the resource if the superclass
permission of the required permission is present in each
protection domain of the access control context.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein adding the required
permission to a permission collection further includes adding
any subclass permissions of the required permission to the new
permission collection.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Gong (US 6,047,377).
Appeal 2009-013663
Application 10/002,439

3
Appellants’ Contentions1
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because Gong:
[D]oes not teach the step of “determining if a superclass
permission of a required permission is present in each protected
domain of an access control context, wherein the superclass
permission is a super class of the required permission”, as
recited in claim 1.
(App. Br. 14). Appellants go on to contend that the Examiner also erred
because:
A permission encompassing the required permission
simply means a larger permission that “encompasses” or
inherently includes a smaller permission, but not a “superclass”
permission in the hierarchy of permissions classes.
(App. Br. 15). Further, Appellants contend:
Gong’s “permission encompassing the required permission”
does not mean “permission superclass” as claimed by
Appellants.
(App. Br. 18).
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because:
In addition, the Examiner incorrectly asserts that Gong
teaches another feature of claim 1, “adding the required
permission to a permission collection if the superclass
permission of the required permission is present in each
protection domain of the access control context.”
(App. Br. 18).

1 Contentions (not reproduced herein) directed to claims 3, 5, and 8 may be
found in Appellants’ Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2009-013663
Application 10/002,439

4
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner also erred
in rejecting claim 1 because:
In addition, the Examiner incorrectly asserts that Gong
teaches “granting access to the resource if the superclass
permission of the required permission is present in each
protection domain of the access control context” in claim 1.
(App. Br. 19).
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
6, 16, and 26 because Gong “does not teach or suggest adding permission
subclasses to the permission domain object.” (App. Br. 26).

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-30 as being anticipated
because Gong fails to teach the argued limitations?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with Appellants’ above contention 4. That is, while Gong
discloses adding a new class to a permission domain object (see col. 16, l.
56-col. 17, l. 13), Gong does not disclose that the addition of the new class
also includes adding any subclasses associated therewith.
However, we disagree with Appellants’ above contentions 1-3 and
any contentions not reproduced herein. With regard to claims 1-5, 7-15,
17-25, and 27-30, 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
Appeal 2009-013663
Application 10/002,439

5
Appellants’ Appeal Brief with the exception noted below. We concur with
the conclusion reached by the Examiner.
Particularly as to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree with
Appellants’ arguments. First, Appellants’ Specification at page 18, lines 14-
21, describes that a subclass of a superclass may itself be a superclass of a
lower level subclass. Second, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the term
“encompasses” which is used by Gong is recognized as designating a
superclass-subclass relationship. See Vining (US 7,152,075 B2)(assigned to
Appellants’ assignee) at column 2, lines 13-17. Third, as the Examiner
points out (Ans. 3), Gong teaches the claimed determining step at col. 6,
ll. 36-46 and col. 18, ll. 29-45. (See also Gong at col. 3, ll. 3-18).
Particularly as to Appellants’ above contention 2, we disagree with
Appellants’ arguments. As the Examiner points out (Ans. 3), Gong teaches
the claimed adding step. (See also Gong at col. 12, ll. 19-24).
Particularly as to Appellants’ above contention 3, we disagree with
Appellants’ arguments. As the Examiner points out (Ans. 3), Gong teaches
the claimed granting step. (See Gong at col. 19, ll. 26-36).

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 6, 16, and 26 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-25, and
27-30 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(3) On this record, claims 6, 16, and 26 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
(4) Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-25, and 27-30 are not patentable.
Appeal 2009-013663
Application 10/002,439

6

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 16, and 26 is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-25, and 27-30 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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc