Ex Parte Ramarao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2012

10360883 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GURUPRASAD RAMARAO and AMIT A. RAIKAR
____________

Appeal 2010-005395
Application 10/360,883
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005395
Application 10/360,883

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-4, 6-16, 18-28, and 30-40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to preventing an unauthorized action by a
network node. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. In an Application and Network Management
software (ANMS) environment, a method for preventing an
unauthorized action comprising:

receiving a message in said ANMS environment from an
ANMS sending node comprising a request for an action;

determining that said action is not permitted in said
ANMS environment; and

preventing said action from occurring in said ANMS
environment; and

automatically sending a list of authorized actions to said
ANMS sending node.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Angal

Evans
US 5,999,978

US 6,266,675 B1
Dec. 7, 1999

July 24, 2001

Appeal 2010-005395
Application 10/360,883

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-28, and 30-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Angal and Evans.

ANALYSIS
Regarding representative independent claim 1, Appellants contend
that Angal teaches away from “automatically sending a list of authorized
actions to said ANMS node” (App. Br. 11). Specifically, Appellants argue
that Angal’s purpose is to “prevent unauthorized persons from accessing the
management information objects in a network,” (App. Br. 12 (quoting
Angal, col. 1, ll. 52-54)) and “[a]utomatically giving an unauthorized user a
list of authorized actions would potentially allow the unauthorized user to
gain improper access to the database, which is contrary to restricting access
to the database, as taught by Angal” (App. Br. 12).
Appellants also contend that the combination of Angal and Evans fails
to disclose “receiving a message in said ANMS environment from an ANMS
sending node comprising a request for an action,” as recited in claim 1,
because “[t]he ANMS environment is distinctly different than the access
control database of Angal and the computer-based system of Evans” (App.
Br. 13). Specifically, Appellants argue that “the ANMS controls and
modifies network resources by at least mapping the network topology,
managing data storage resources, and re-routing network traffic around
downed links or to balance the load on the network” (App. Br. 14). We
disagree.
Appeal 2010-005395
Application 10/360,883

4
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 14)1 and find that Angal discloses
granting different levels of access to users, not just preventing access by
unauthorized users. Angal’s “access control server responds to the access
requests from the users by granting, denying and partially granting and
denying the access requested in each access request in accordance with the
access rights specified in the access control database” (Angal, col. 2, l. 66-
col. 3, l. 3). More specifically:
An access control decision function (ACDF) 110 is the
procedure (or set of procedures) that applies the access control
rules to each access request so as to determine whether the
requested access to a management object should be granted or
denied. As will be discussed in more detail below, when an
access request has a target of more than one management
object, some portions of an access request may be granted while
other portions are denied.

(Angal, col. 4, ll. 32-39). Appellants’ argument that “[a]utomatically giving
an unauthorized user a list of authorized actions would potentially allow the
unauthorized user to gain improper access to the database” (App. Br. 12)
does not appreciate Angal’s disclosure that users may be able to access
certain management objects but not others. The fact that a user may not be
permitted access to some management objects does not necessarily teach
away from sending a list of authorized actions to the user regarding
management objects to which access is permitted. Thus, we are not
persuaded that Angal teaches away from “automatically sending a list of
authorized actions to said ANMS sending node,” as recited in claim 1.
Regarding Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 13-15) that the
combination of Angal and Evans fails to disclose an “ANMS environment”

1 Examiner’s Answer mailed January 28, 2009.
Appeal 2010-005395
Application 10/360,883

5
and therefore also fails to disclose an “ANMS sending node,” we find that
the modifier “ANMS” (Application and Network Management software)
does not define the claimed “ANMS environment” and “ANMS sending
node” over the cited art. While we read claims in light of the Specification,
we do not import limitations from the Specification into the claims.
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004). The ANMS functions that Appellants recite to distinguish claim 1
from Angal and Evans — “the ANMS controls and modifies network
resources by at least mapping the network topology, managing data storage
resources, and re-routing network traffic around downed links or to balance
the load on the network” (App. Br. 13-14) — are merely exemplary (See
Spec. 1:16-18 (“For example, ANMS systems can be used to . . . .”)
(emphasis added)). Claim 1 does not recite any limitations to determine
which of these specific features are included in the claimed ANMS
environment. Rather, the ANMS environment is limited only by those
specific steps recited in claim 1: “receiving a message . . . comprising a
request for an action”; “determining that said action is not permitted”;
“preventing said action from occurring”; and “automatically sending a list of
authorized actions.” Appellants do not specifically argue that the
combination of Angal and Evans fails to disclose these steps (see App. Br.
10-15). Absent further limitations defining the “ANMS environment” in
claim 1, this limitation does not define over Angal and Evans where Angal’s
“network management system 100” employs a “network 106 [that] can be
virtually any type of computer implemented network that uses a
management protocol for performing management functions” (Angal, col. 3,
l. 61-col. 4, l. 1).
Appeal 2010-005395
Application 10/360,883

6
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 and claims 2-4, 6-16, 18-28, and 30-40 not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-28, and 30-
40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-16,
18-28, and 30-40.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

peb