Ex Parte Pasieka

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2007

09456689 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2007)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 a list of the subset of digital certificates that have been revoked” (Br. 10).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