Ex Parte Rantanen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2013

11379506 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte MIKA A. RANTANEN
____________

Appeal 2011-000351
Application 11/379,506
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD,
and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000351
Application 11/379,506

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-27, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to managing access rights in a device
management system by enabling a device management server to access and
modify the settings of a dynamic node (see Spec. ¶¶ [0001] and [0009]).
Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, the at
least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with
the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least the
following:
facilitate provision in a first device of a device management tree
structure, the tree structure defining a plurality of nodes, including at
least a root node, the root node having an access control list that does
not contain a replace access right; and
write a predefined set of access rights into an access control list
of any dynamic nodes which are children of an interior node specified
in an issued command and which do not contain the predefined set of
access rights, when a second device issues the command to read the
tree structure of the first device.
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sahinoja (US 2005/0010585 A1) and Kim (US
2005/0289229 A1).

Appeal 2011-000351
Application 11/379,506

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
With respect to claim 1, Appellant does not dispute the teachings of
Sahinoja, but contends that the proposed combination of Sahinoja with Kim
“does not teach or suggest any root node having an access control list that
does not contain a replace access right” (App. Br. 6)(emphasis original).
Appellant specifically asserts that Kim in fact discloses that the access
control list (ACL) of the root node does include a replace access right, which
is the opposite of the disputed claim feature (App. Br. 6-7). Appellant
further contents that the proposed combination of references fails to teach or
suggest:
writing a predefined set of access rights into an access control
list of any dynamic nodes which are children of an interior node
specified in an issued command and which do not contain the
predefined set of access rights, when a second device issues the
command to read the tree structure of the first device, as recited
by claim 1.
(App. Br. 7)(emphasis original). In particular, Appellant points out that
Kim’s configuring by a client a database with management right information
from servers in real time is not the same as the disputed claim feature (id.).
In response to each of the arguments raised by Appellant, the
Examiner presents sufficient findings and responses (Ans. 15-16). We agree
with these findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own.
We specifically agree with the Examiner that the nodes in Kim’s
client device 60, without connecting to the device management (DM) servers
for updates, do not have a replace access right (Ans. 15 (citing ¶¶ [0038] –
Appeal 2011-000351
Application 11/379,506

4
[0040])). Specifically, the access control list of Kim’s root node, depicted in
Figure 1, “does not contain a replace access right” because it contains only
the name of a server from which to obtain “a replace access right.” Ans. 4
(citing ¶¶ [0038] – [0040]). As for Appellants’ contention regarding “a
predefined set of access rights,” the Examiner has reasonably equated “a
predefined set of access rights” in claim 1 with a set of unexpired access
rights for use by the client device in Kim, which would be written in an ACL
when system changes cause expiration of the previously-used access rights
(Ans. 15). Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s contentions (Reply Br. 4-5),
Kim’s updating meets “write a predefined set of access rights into an access
control list of any dynamic nodes which are children of an interior node
specified in an issued command and which do not contain the predefined set
of access rights, when a second device issues the command to read the tree
structure of the first device” recited in claim 1 and similarly in other
independent claims 9, 16, and 23. That is, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim does not preclude having an expired access right
in the node as not containing “the predefined set of access rights” which may
be updated, i.e., written over by a new one.
With respect to the remaining dependent claims, Appellant does not
present any specific and separate arguments and relies on the same reasons
stated for the patentability of independent claims 1, 9, 16, and 23, thus,
allowing the dependent claims fall with their base claim (see App. Br. 8-9).

Appeal 2011-000351
Application 11/379,506

5
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in
rejecting claims 1-27.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27 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

ELD