Ex Parte Pereira

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2004

09514227 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2004)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte MANUEL V. PEREIRA III

Appeal No. 2004-0518
Application No. 09/514,227

ON BRIEF

Before: GROSS, BLANKENSHIP and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims
1, 4 through 6, 10, 12, 13, 18, 21 through 23, 27, 30 through 56, which constitute all the
claims in the application.
Invention
The invention relates to a profiling system for controlling users’ access to a
plurality of objects in a database. The system makes use of three types of records that
Appeal No. 2004-0518
Application No. 09/514,227
-2-
are linked. (See page 4 of appellant’s specification). Examples of each of the three
groups of records are shown in figures 1-3 of appellant’s specification.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A profiling system for controlling access for a plurality of users to a plurality of
objects located in at least one electronic database, the system comprising:
a) a first plurality of records including a record for each of the plurality of
users, each record having a predetermined number of attributes;
b) a second plurality of records, each record of the second plurality of
records linked to one of the first plurality of records and having at least
one attribute defining at least one of a plurality of objects located in the
at least one electronic database, that the user may access; and
c) a third plurality of records, wherein each record indicates an attribute of
user access control, wherein one of the third plurality of records is
linked to one of the second plurality of records to limit the user access
control as indicated in the linked one of the third plurality of records to
the database object indicated in the linked one of the second plurality
of objects.
References
The reference relied upon by the examiner is:

Win et al. (Win) 6,161,139 December 12, 2000
(filed Feb. 12, 1999)
Appeal No. 2004-0518
Application No. 09/514,227
1 Appellant filed an Appeal Brief on July 11, 2003 (certified as being mailed on July 8,
2003, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.8(a)) and appellant filed a Reply Brief on
October 3, 2003 (certified as being mailed on September 29, 2003, in accordance with
37 C.F.R. § 1.8(a)).
-3-
Claims 1, 4 through 6, 10, 12, 13, 18, 21 through 23, 27, 30 through 56 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Win. Throughout the opinion we
make reference to the briefs1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner
as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration,
in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellant and examiner, for the reasons
stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4 through 6, 10, 12,
13, 18, 21 through 23, 27, 30 through 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
The examiner sets forth the rejection on pages 3 through 7 of the final rejection
dated November 8, 2002. On pages 7 and 8 of the answer the examiner states:
Appeal No. 2004-0518
Application No. 09/514,227
-4-
“An administrator may define a user by completing and submitting the data
entry form for each individual user to be defined. In response, Registry Server
108 stores information defining the user in the Registry Repository 110. See
DEFINING USERS in col. 15, lines 30-35. By these actions, the first plurality
of records are hereby created and stored in the database. Win also teaches
that an administrator may complete and submit the data entry form for each role
to be defined. In response, Registry Server 108 stores information defining the
role in the Registry Repository 110. See DEFINING ROLES col. 14 lines 9-15.
Roles are defined by information identifying a name of a roll and by a functional
group in which the role resides. Role refers to job function such as sales
representative, financial analyst, etc. (col. 5, lines 18-21). By these actions, the
second plurality of records are hereby created and stored in the database.
Win further teaches that an administrator may complete and submit the data
entry form for each resource record to be defined. See DEFINING
RESOURCES col. 14, lines 25-35. By these actions, the third plurality of
records are hereby created and stored in the database.
The appellant responds to this statement by the examiner, on page 4 of the reply brief:
Nowhere does the cited Wind (sic, Win) disclose linking one first record, or
the user record, with a second record indicating an object the user may access.
Thus, although Win may assign privileges and roles to a user as the Examiner
found on page 8 of the Examiner (sic) Answer, nowhere does the cited Win
anywhere disclose the specific claimed arrangement of three types of records
associated as claimed, where one of a third records indicating an attribute of
access control is linked to one of a second records having an attribute defining
an object the user may access, where the second record is yet further linked to
one of a first records for one user that may access the object identified in the
second type of record according to the user access control limits specified in the
associated third record.
We concur with appellant. Claim 1 contains limitations to a system where there
are three types of records. The first type contains records of user information. The
second type contains records that have an attribute defining an object in a database
that
Appeal No. 2004-0518
Application No. 09/514,227
-5-
a user may access and where each record is linked to one record in the first type. The
third type contains records wherein each record indicates an attribute of user access
control and is linked to one of the records in the second type. Independent claims 18
and 27 contain similar limitations.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited
functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
We find that Win teaches two types of records, a resource profile and a user
profile which are linked by roles (see column 5, lines 26-32). A role is a relationship of a
use to an organization and includes definitions of their information needs, access rights
or privileges (see column 5, lines 2-10). Roles are assigned to both users and
resources (see column 13 lines 59-60). We find that Win’s disclosure of Defining
Resources is part of the process of assigning roles to resources and a step in the
creation of the “Resource Profile” (see Column 13, lines 30-35). Thus, contrary, to the
examiner’s assertion, on page 8 of the answer, we do not find that Win’s disclosure of a
step of Defining Resources, teaches creation of a third plurality of records, rather we
Appeal No. 2004-0518
Application No. 09/514,227
-6-
find it is a step in creating the resource profile. Accordingly, we find that Win does not
teach all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 18 and 27, and as such we find that
Win does not anticipate the claims.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4 through 6,
10, 12, 13, 18, 21 through 23, 27, 30 through 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 anticipated by
Win.

Reversed

ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

RN/RWK
Appeal No. 2004-0518
Application No. 09/514,227
-7-
KONRAD RAYNES VICTOR & MANN, LLP
315 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE
SUITE 210
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212