Ex Parte PasiekaDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 27, 200709456689 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2007) Copy Citation The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL S. PASIEKA ____________ Appeal 2007-0594 Application 09/456,689 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Decided: March 27, 2007 ____________ Before JAMES D. THOMAS, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges. HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1 to 10 and 12 to 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant has invented a method and apparatus for controlling access to information. An entity controlling access to the information maintains a contact list of other entities that have attempted to communicate with the Appeal 2007-0594 Application 09/456,689 2 control entity. The contact list of other entities is used in conjunction with a revocation list that includes entities with revoked identifiers to determine which entities are authorized to communicate with the control entity. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as follows: 1. A method for controlling access to information, the method comprising the steps of: maintaining, for a given entity controlling access to the information, a contact list comprising information identifying one or more other entities which have attempted to communicate with the given entity; and utilizing the contact list in conjunction with a revocation list associated with the given entity to determine which of at least a subset of the one or more other entities are authorized to communicate with the given entity. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Gruse US 6,389,538 May 14, 2002 (filed Oct. 22, 1998) The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 10 and 12 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Gruse. Appellant acknowledges that the Clearinghouse 105 in Gruse maintains “1. a list of all the digital certificates that have been assigned; and 2. a list of the subset of digital certificates that have been revoked” (Br. 10). Appellant contends that Gruse does not teach the use of a contact list in conjunction with a revocation list to determine which entities are authorized to communicate with a control entity (Br. 11). After consideration of the Appeal 2007-0594 Application 09/456,689 3 Examiner’s position, the Appellant now contends that the Clearinghouse 105 maintains a database of digital certificates that it has assigned as opposed to a database of entities that have attempted to communicate with the control entity (Reply Br. 2). We reverse. ISSUE Does Gruse describe a contact list that identifies entities that have attempted to communicate with the control entity? FINDINGS OF FACT Appellant describes a control entity that uses a contact list and a revocation list to control access to information. The contact list comprises information identifying entities that have attempted to communicate with the control entity. The control entity uses the contact list in conjunction with the revocation list to determine which entities are authorized to communicate with the control entity. Gruse describes a control entity (i.e., Clearinghouse 105) that uses a contact list (i.e., digital certificates granted to entities that have permission to access the Secure Digital Content Electronic Distribution System 100) in conjunction with a revocation list to determine access rights to content in Electronic Digital Content Stores 103 (Figs. 1A to 1C; col. 10, ll. 4 to 15; col. 17, ll. 11 to 24; col. 44, l. 66 to col. 45, l. 32). PRINCIPLE OF LAW Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, Appeal 2007-0594 Application 09/456,689 4 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). ANALYSIS The contact list in Gruse only identifies entities that were granted a digital certificate. The contact list in Gruse does not include entities that were unsuccessful in their attempts to get digital certificates. CONCLUSION OF LAW Anticipation has not been established by the Examiner because the contact list maintained by Gruse does not include entities that made an attempt to get a digital certificate, but were denied such a certificate. DECISION The anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 10 and 12 to 20 is reversed. REVERSED KIS PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS P. O. BOX 3001 BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation