Ex Parte Rawat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2013

11278000 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/278,000 03/30/2006 Anshul Rawat MFCP.139210 5691
45809 7590 03/22/2013
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(MICROSOFT CORPORATION)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
BURKE, JEFF A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANSHUL RAWAT, CHRIS J. GUZAK, EDWARD B. AVERETT,
JOHN E. BREZAK, MOHAMMED A. SAMJI, RAMKUMAR
RAMASUBRAMANIAN and ROBERT P. SWEENEY
____________

Appeal 2010-004467
Application 11/278,000
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and ANDREW J.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004467
Application 11/278,000

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-14 and 17-25. Appeal
Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to a method and computer storage media for
displaying items in a computer operating system. Appeal Brief 4.

Illustrative Claim (emphasis added)

1. A method for displaying items in a computer operating system, the
method comprising the steps of:
receiving a user-initiated query that searches for items shared by the
user;
identifying the user of the computer operating system based on
user-specific criteria supported by the query;
identifying a set of items on the computer operating system as being
owned and shared by the user, wherein identifying comprises:
(a) utilizing the identification of the user, as provided in the
query, to identify a plurality of items that are owned by the user; and
(b) scanning a permission property, provided in a file system
index, of each of the owned plurality of items to identify the set of
items that is shared by the user to at least one other user, wherein the
permission property comprises a reference to the at least one other user
Appeal 2010-004467
Application 11/278,000

3
who has rights granted thereto, by the user, to access one or more of
the owned plurality of items; and
displaying each of said plurality of shared items.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Hornkvist (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number
2007/0033191 A1; published February 8, 2007; provisionally filed January
7, 2005). Answer 3-8.
Claims 8, 10-13 and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hornkvist and Glasser (U.S. Patent Number
6,308,173 B1; issued October 23, 2001). Answer 8-16.
Claims 14, 18-20 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hornkvist, Parker (U.S. Patent Number 5,729,734;
issued March 17, 1998) and Microsoft (Windows 2000 Tutorial). Answer
16-21.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hornkvist, Parker, Microsoft and Glasser. Answer 21-22.

Issue on Appeal
Do Hornkvist, Glasser, Parker and Microsoft, either alone or in
combination, disclose “identifying a set of items on the computer operating
system as being owned and shared by the user” and “utilizing the
identification of the user, as provided in the query, to identify a plurality of
items that are owned by the user” as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2010-004467
Application 11/278,000

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue that:

[C]laim 1 recites identifying a set of items that are owned
and “shared by the user to at least one other user,” where
the other user has rights granted thereto by the user
conducting the search. Thus, the user searching for files is
able to filter the retrieved files based on which file s/he has
previously granted others rights to view, edit, and the like.
The disclosure of the Hornkvist reference describes the
instance where the user searching for files is blocked from
viewing a file that is not shared with him or her. “For
example, if a first user enters a search query which
matches a file and metadata for the file of a second user
who has restricted access to that file such that the file can
only be used by and viewed by the second user, the
method of FIG. 24 will prevent the first user from seeing
those files of the second user,” as disclosed by the
Hornkvist reference at paragraph [0130]. Thus, the search
of Hornkvist is focused on preventing a user from viewing
a file if rights to that file are not extended to that user.
Appeal Brief 10.
Appellants contend that there is a distinction between a file being
shared “by” a user and a file being shared “with” a user when files are
Appeal 2010-004467
Application 11/278,000

5
retrieved upon conducting a search on a computer operating system. Id. at
11.
Appellants further argue that Hornvist does not teach all the elements
of the invention recited in claim 1 because:

The Office contends the Hornkvist reference, at
paragraph [0130] discloses that access permissions are
determined based on the user who is submitting the query,
therefore the user must be identified in order for their
permissions to be retrieved. However, the cited portions of
the Hornkvist reference do not describe identifying the
user submitting the query based on “user-specific criteria
supported by the query,” as recited by claim 1. Instead, the
Hornkvist reference at [0131] describes receiving a search
query from a current user of a computer, where the user is
identified based on a user name and password provided by
the user during a logon process. Accordingly, the user
identified by the process of Hornkvist reference is always
the currently-logged-in user, regardless of the user who is
now currently using the computer (i.e., the user submitting
the query may differ from the user that offered logon
information). This is disclosed in the Hornkvist reference
at paragraph [0129]. As such, Hornkvist does not
explicitly describe, or implicitly require, the query to
support user-specific criteria that identifies the user, but
can rely on other means of identifying a user.
Appeal Brief 11-12.
The Examiner provides “citations” to Hornkvist to support the
Examiner’s findings; however, for the sake of brevity, the citations will not
be reproduced here. See Answer 23. Based upon the “citations” the
Examiner finds that:

Hornkvist teaches identifying a set of items on the
computer operating system as being owned and shared, i.e.
Appeal 2010-004467
Application 11/278,000

6
the permissions are defined also a[s] to include: read
only access, read and write access, and execute access
note that read/write and execute permissions give the
file the ability to be shared, by the user, i.e. querying a
set of files in a system for which permissions have been
established for a given user, wherein identifying
comprises: (a) utilizing the identification of the user, as
provided in the query, to identify a plurality of items that
are owned by the user, i.e. the querying is performed
using the access permissions of the user who is logged
in, and (b) scanning a permission property, provided in a
file system index, of each of the owned plurality of items
to identify the set of items that is shared by the user to at
least one other user, i.e. scanning permissions of files to
determine the permissions of each file with respect to a
user, wherein the permission property comprises a
reference to the at least one other user who has rights
granted thereto, by the user, to access one or more of the
owned plurality of items, i.e. for each file a permissions
structure which includes at least: a file ID,
conventional permissions associated with the file,
wherein the conventional permissions information
includes read, write and execute permissions for an
owner (or other user) of the file as well as read, write
and execute permissions for a group, and also possibly
permissions for other users.
Answer 23-24.
The Examiner further finds that Appellants’ contentions that
Hornkvist fails to disclose the fact that a user may search files that
are shared by the user are erroneous. Id. at 24. The Examiner finds
that Hornkvist discloses in paragraph [0136] that:

“[F]or each file a permissions structure which includes at
least: a file ID, conventional permissions associated
with the file, wherein the conventional permissions
information includes read, write and execute
Appeal 2010-004467
Application 11/278,000

7
permissions for an owner (or other user) of the file as
well as read, write and execute permissions for a
group, and also possibly permissions for other users”,
disclosing that there are in fact permissions set by a user
for other users. In such a case, Hornkvist can be used to
seek out files shared by the user, because it will return all
files in which the user has read/write access (as well as
read and execute access), which will allow the user access
to the file metadata, which would then display the
permissions granted to other users. Furthermore, as stated
repeatedly above, the Shared to me functionality is clearly
supported in Hornkvist by allowing the user to search for
files which they have been granted access.
Answer 24-25.
The Examiner further finds that in regard to the claimed
identification of the user based upon criteria supported by the query
that Hornkivist explicitly discloses:
[T]wo users can be concurrently logged-in ([0131], It will
be appreciated that in certain operating systems, it is
possible for the two users to be concurrently logged in).
Furthermore, a reasonable interpretation of the limitation
is found in Hornkvist in that the user is identified, i.e. files
are retrieved for the user, based on user specific criteria,
i.e. user permissions, supported in the query, i.e. the
permissions can be logically ANDed into the query (All
bolded citations from [0129]).
Answer 25.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 as well as
dependent claims 3, 5-7 and 21 based upon the findings and the
reasons set forth by the Examiner. Claim 1 is drawn to a method
for manipulating data in a computer operating system based upon
Appeal 2010-004467
Application 11/278,000

8
permissions which are taught by Hornkvist, and therefore claim 1 is
not distinguishable over Hornkvist.
Appellants also argue that Glasser does not cure the
deficiencies of Hornkvist in regard to rendering obvious claim 8
because the combination “fail[s] to fairly describe or suggest
utilizing the file system index to identify a first item and a second
item of the shared items owned by said user and having rights
granted to at least one other user on the computer system” because
the cited portions of Glasser teach “a file system that catalogs
shared items arranged according to permission properties associated
therewith.” Appeal Brief 14-15.
The Examiner finds that Hornkvist discloses in paragraph
[0136] the fact that files are shared (sharing out) with other users:

[B]ecause it specifically states that or each file a
permissions structure which includes at least: a file ID,
conventional permissions associated with the file,
wherein the conventional permissions information
includes read, write and execute permissions for an
owner (or other users) of the file as well as read, write
and execute permissions for a group, and also possibly
permissions for other users. Teaching, in fact, the
“Sharing out” of a file.
Answer 26.

The Examiner further acknowledges that Hornkvist does not
disclose wherein the file system index catalogs the one or more
shared items arranged according to permission properties and
therefore relies upon Glasser to show that cataloging one or more
Appeal 2010-004467
Application 11/278,000

9
shared items arranged according to access permission properties
was well known in the art. Answer 29.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 8 as well as
dependent claims 10-13 and 22-24 for the reasons set forth by the
Examiner. Claim 8 is drawn to a method of manipulating data
similar to claim 8 with the addition of cataloging the data; however,
such data manipulation is well known in the art and fails to
distinguish over Hornkvist/Glasser combination.

Appellants further argue that:
Hornkvist, Parker, and Microsoft, alone or in combination,
fail to fairly describe or suggest “a reference to the at least
one user other than said first user on said computer to
whom rights to access one or more items on the item list is
previously granted by the user” as recited in independent
claim 14.
Appeal Brief 17.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because the
claimed manipulation of data does not distinguish over the cited art.
Hornkvist discloses the utilization of a file name or a folder name for
displayed items, Parker discloses wherein the physical location of data
folders are displayed, and finally, Microsoft discloses wherein the physical
location of the data folders is on the actual physical file structure of a
computer. Answer 31-32. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent 14 as well as dependent
claims 17-20 and 25 for the reasons set for by Examiner.

Appeal 2010-004467
Application 11/278,000

10
DECISIONS
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 21 is affirmed.
The obviousness rejections of claims 8, 10-14 and 17-25 are 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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

peb