Ex Parte Sabsevitz et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 9, 201111138020 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 9, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte ARTHUR L. SABSEVITZ, RONALD JOHN LUMAN II, and DONN CAPPS ____________________ Appeal 2009-008715 Application 11/138,0201 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JAY P. LUCAS, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1 to 27 under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI” or the “Board”) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Application filed May 26, 2005. The real party in interest is Hewlett Packard Development Co, L.P. Appeal 2009-008715 Application 11/138,020 2 We reverse. Appellants’ invention relates to a method for managing access to an electronic file. In the words of Appellants: BACKGROUND Computer system security remains an important issue. As computer networks expand, the opportunity for malicious attacks on computer systems expands concomitantly. Hence, additional computer security techniques are desirable. SUMMARY In one embodiment a method of managing file access in a computer system comprises recording a plurality of file access attribute information over a period of time; developing one or more file access policies based on the access attribute information; and managing one or more subsequent file access requests in accordance with the one or more file access policies. . . . . The file access parameters collected during the analysis phase may be used to develop file access policies. In one embodiment, interface module 160 provides a user-level analysis tool for generating file access policies from the data collected and stored by the profiling module 146. The analysis tool analyzes the .profile files, and the resulting access policies are mapped into file-specific templates that define the allowed access profile. The templates may be stored in a file .policy in the file access directory. Appeal 2009-008715 Application 11/138,020 3 (Spec. ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0029]). The following illustrates the claims on appeal: Claim 1: 1. A method of managing file access in a computer system, comprising: recording file access attribute information over a period of time; generating one or more file access policies based on the file access attribute information; and managing one or more subsequent file access requests in accordance with the one or more file access policies. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Graham US 2002/0178271 A1 Nov. 28, 2002 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: Claims 1 to 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for being anticipated by Graham. ISSUE The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b). The issue specifically Appeal 2009-008715 Application 11/138,020 4 turns on whether Graham teaches generating file access policies based on recorded file access attribute information. FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Appellants have invented a method of permitting access to files in a file storage context based on access policies. (Spec. 1, ¶ [0003]). These policies can be generated by an analysis tool that reviews data on previous accesses and stores the data in a database. (Spec. 9, ¶ [0029]). 2. The Graham reference teaches a file access control system with access controlled by consulting policies in a database. (¶ [0115]). PRINCIPLES OF LAW Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Appeal 2009-008715 Application 11/138,020 5 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). ANALYSIS Arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1 to 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) The Examiner has rejected the noted claims for being anticipated by Graham. Graham teaches a dynamic file access control system, in which access to files is limited in accordance with policies maintained in a database. (¶ [0074], ¶ [0356]). A tracking component tracks end user access to files. (¶ [0365]). However, Appellants point out that “Graham does not use information regarding an end user's file usage (¶ [0365]) or user shared secrets and credential[s] (¶ [0098]) for generating one or more file access policies based on the file access attribute information (which has been recorded over a period of time).” (App. Br. 5, middle). In response, the Examiner argues that Graham teaches the limitations in question in the storage of a metafile, as described in Table 3. (Ans. 14, bottom). While we accept that this information, which may constitute usage information, is stored, we note no evidence in Graham that the information is used to generate file access policies. The policy editor 344, mentioned by the Examiner, modifies policies. (Graham ¶ [0111]). Policies are acquired by an access server. (Graham ¶ [107]). But the teaching of generating the Appeal 2009-008715 Application 11/138,020 6 policies based on the file access attribute information, claimed in claim 1 and all of the independent claims, is simply lacking in the reference. In view of this error in the rejection, indicated by the Appellants, of all of the independent claims, we need not consider the individual arguments of the dependent claims. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 27. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 27. REVERSED peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation