Ex Parte Sabsevitz et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 9, 2011

11138020 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 9, 2011)

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