Ex Parte Silva

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 20, 2010

10759409 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 20, 2010)

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.
10/759,409 01/16/2004 Luciano M. Silva RSW920030258US1 (140) 7485
46320 7590 12/21/2010
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
PARK, JEONG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LUCIANO M. SILVA
_____________

Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, THOMAS S. HAHN,
and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge HAIRSTON.
Concurring-in-part Opinion filed by Administrative Patent Judge
BAUMEISTER.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 4 to 17. Claims 1 to 3 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellant’s invention is concerned with software development
models using distributed application configurations (Spec. ¶ [0002]).
More specifically, Appellant discloses and claims a method and
system for programmatic role-based security in a dynamically
generated user interface (claims 4, 8, and 12; Figs. 1-3; Abs.; Spec. ¶¶
[0001], [0002]). An important aspect of a distributed application is
security and differential access for different users having different
roles (e.g., manager, employee, etc.) (Spec. ¶¶ [0005], [0006]).
Appellant discloses and claims a first view in a security system of a
dynamically generated user interface having (i) “a linkage to a second
view,” and (ii) “access checking logic disposed in said first view and
programmed to omit said linkage” (claim 4).
Claims 4 and 8, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
4. A system for programmatic role-based security in a
dynamically generated user interface, the system comprising:
an application framework configured through a deployment
descriptor comprising a listing of a set of views, a listing of associated
program logic and a listing of a set of authorized roles for selected
ones of said views;
a first view listed in said deployment descriptor and comprising
a linkage to a second view listed in said deployment descriptor; and,
Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

3
access checking logic disposed in said first view and
programmed to omit said linkage where a role of an end user
accessing said first view is not authorized to access said second view
according to said listing of said set of authorized roles in said
deployment descriptor.
(Claim 4 (emphases added)).
8. A method for programmatic role-based security in a
dynamically generated user interface, the method comprising the steps
of:
authenticating access to a rendering of a selected view based
upon a role of an end user requesting access to said selected view;
processing said selected view to identify a method call to access
checking logic;
comparing said role to a set of roles authorized to access a
different view associated with said access checking logic; and,
disposing a link to said different view in said rendering of said
selected view conditional upon said role matches a role in said set of
roles.
(Claim 8 (emphases added)).
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Bazinet US 2003/0167298 A1 Sep. 4, 2003
Vasandani US 6,985,946 B1 Jan. 10, 2006
(filed May 12, 2000)
Schenk US 2006/0004887 A1 Jan. 5, 2006
(filed Apr. 4, 2002)

The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 4 and 6 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bazinet and Vasandani.
Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

4
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bazinet in view of Vasandani, further in view of
Schenk.

ISSUES
With regard to independent claims 4, 8, 12, and 16, the
Examiner relies upon Bazinet as teaching all of the recited features of
these claims except for role-based access security, and relies upon
Vasandani as teaching role-based access security (Ans. 3-9).
First Issue: Independent Claim 4
Appellant contends (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 3-8) that Bazinet
fails to teach the limitation found in claim 4 of “access checking logic
disposed in said first view programmed to omit said linkage” because
even if Bazinet teaches a portal application that runs access checking
logic and shows the results on the page to the client, this is not the
same as showing the access checking logic itself. Appellant asserts
(Reply Br. 6) that the access checking logic of blocks 406-414 in
Figure 4 of Bazinet are not disposed with the first view (i.e., web page
502 generated by the portal application 102 shown in Figure 5).
Accordingly, the first issue is whether Bazinet discloses or
suggests access checking logic disposed in a first view, where the first
view also contains a linkage to a second view, as set forth in
independent claim 4.

Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

5
Second Issue: Independent Claims 8 and 12
With regard to claims 8 and 12, Appellant contends (App. Br.
9-11; Reply Br. 8) that Bazinet’s Figure 4 discloses steps 408-414 for
authenticating a user before steps 422-434 are performed which
generate a page (i.e., a first view) containing a link to a second view.
Appellant asserts (App. Br. 10) that generating a page after an
authentication process is not the same as “processing said selected
view to identify a method call to access checking logic,” as set forth in
claims 8 and 12.
Accordingly, the second issue is whether Bazinet discloses or
suggests “processing said selected view to identify a method call to
access checking logic,” as set forth in independent claims 8 and 12.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant describes a first or selected view 110 (Figure 1)
and its operation (Figure 3) at paragraphs [0023] and [0027]
of the Specification:
Notably, the selected view 110 can include an
internal linkage to a linked view 120. The internal
linkage can be embodied in a hyperlink, button, or menu
choice, to name a few. The linked view 120, like the
selected view 110 can be defined by a markup language
document encapsulating program logic for execution
externally to a content browsing process configured to
render the markup language document. As before, JSP
technology represents a preferred embodiment of the
foregoing markup language document.

(Spec. ¶ [0023] (emphasis added)).
Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

6
In block 340, the view can be processed in order to
produce a dynamic user interface for the view. As is well
known in the art, to the extent the view is embodied in an
activated server page such as a JSP, the logic disposed
within the view can be compiled and executed to
dynamically produce markup fragments to be combined
with statically defined markup fragments in the view. In
block 350, if logic is detected which relates to the
conditional inclusion of a link to a second view, in block
360 the logic can be executed to check role-based
permissions for accessing the second view. If in decision
block 370 the role of the end user attempting to access
the first view would not also be permitted to access the
second view, in block 380 the markup linking the second
view to the first view can be omitted from the markup
produced by the view. Finally, in block 390 the markup
produced by the view can be returned for rendering.
(Spec. ¶ [0027] (emphases added)).
2. Bazinet describes a portal application 102 (Fig. 1) that
generates a web page 502 on web browser 114 at client 110
for display of backend applications 128, 130 that may be
accessed by client 110 (step 416 in Fig. 4; Fig. 5; Abs.; ¶
[0039]). Bazinet also describes a user authentication process
(steps 408 to 414 in Fig. 4) based on access privileges of the
authenticated user (¶ [0038]). A link for further allowed
operations/resources is sent from the portal application 102
to the user in response to a user request (steps 416-434 in
Fig. 4; ¶¶ [0037]-[0040]).

Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

7
Principles of Law
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon
the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed.
Cir. 1988).

ANALYSIS
First Issue: Independent Claim 4
With regard to claim 4, Appellant’s contention (App. Br. 7-9;
Reply Br. 3-8) that Bazinet fails to teach “access checking logic
disposed in said first view programmed to omit said linkage” is
convincing. We agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 4-5) that the
Examiner has not established that the access checking logic itself is
disposed in the first view, only that a portal application that runs
access checking logic shows the results of the logic.
Bazinet discloses access logic as shown in Figure 4 (see ¶¶
[0021] and [0049]), and a view of a graphical user interface on a
browser 114 as shown in Figure 5 (see ¶¶ [0022], [0039], and [0040];
FF 2). However, the Examiner has not persuasively rebutted
Appellant’s assertion (Reply Br. 6) that Bazinet’s access checking
logic of blocks 406-414 in Figure 4 are not disposed in the first view
(i.e., the web page 502 generated by the portal application 102 shown
in Figure 5). Appellant’s argument (Reply Br. 6) that there is no
disclosure in Bazinet that the logic blocks 406 to 414 in Figure 4 are
disposed in the first view (i.e., the web page 502 shown in Figure 5) is
convincing.
Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

8
Because Bazinet does not teach or suggest access checking
logic disposed in a first view containing a linkage to a second view
(see FF 2), and the Examiner has not adequately shown otherwise, the
Examiner has not established a factual basis to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See Fine, 837 F.2d at 1073.
While Vasandani discloses role-based access security,
Vasandani does not cure the deficiencies of Bazinet discussed supra.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4,
or dependent claims 6, 7, and 17, which fall with independent claim 4.
For similar reasons, and because Schenk fails to cure the deficiencies
of Bazinet and Vasandani, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5, which depends from claim 4.
Second Issue: Independent Claims 8 and 12
Turning now to the obviousness rejection of independent claims
8 and 12, we note that these claims are broader than claim 4 discussed
supra, in that claims 8 and 12 do not positively recite a first view, a
second view with linkage in that first view, and access checking logic
also disposed in the first view, as recited in claim 4. Claims 8 and 12
simply recite “processing said selected view to identify a method call
to access checking logic” and “disposing a link to said different view
in said rendering of said selected view” (see claims 8 and 12). Thus,
claims 8 and 12 do not recite access checking logic being present in
the first or selected view in addition to the link or linkage to the
second or different view.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant points to blocks 340 and 350 in
Figure 3 and lines 1 to 6 of paragraph [0027] of the Specification as
Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

9
providing support for the recitation in claims 8 and 12 of “processing
said selected view to identify a method call to access checking logic”
(App. Br. 2-3). Block 340 is described by Appellant in the
Specification as processing a view to produce a dynamic user
interface for the view (FF 1; Spec. ¶ [0027], lines 1 to 5). Block 350
is described as detecting logic relating to whether or not a link to the
second view (i.e., access checking logic) is included in the view (FF
1; Spec. ¶ [0027], lines 5 to 6). If the logic is detected in block 350,
then that logic is executed in block 360 (FF 1; Spec. ¶ [0027], lines 6
to 7). Figure 3 and paragraph [0027] of Appellant’s Specification
describe detecting logic relating to the conditional inclusion of a link
to a second view, but are silent as to identifying “a method call to
access checking logic” as recited in claims 8 and 12.
Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 10) that Bazinet has no need
for the first view to include a method call to access checking logic
because Bazinet’s access checking logic occurs prior to the generation
of the first view or page is unpersuasive. Appellant’s argument is
notably not commensurate in scope with the actual language of claims
8 and 12, which do not positively recite a “first view” or a “selected
view” or even “access checking logic” being disposed in any view.
Claims 8 and 12 merely call for “processing said selected view” in
order to identify a call that concerns access checking logic (see claims
8 and 12). This is in sharp contrast to claim 4, which specifically
recites “a first view” having a linkage to a second view, and also
recites “access checking logic disposed in said first view” (see claim
4).
Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

10
Bazinet, like Appellant, discloses or suggests “processing said
selected view to identify a method call to access checking logic,” as
set forth in independent claims 8 and 12. The recitation of processing
a selected view “to identify a method call to access checking logic” is
met by Bazinet’s Figure 4 and related disclosure in paragraphs [0038]
and [0039] (FF 2). Appellant has not shown otherwise.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
8 and 12 and claims 9 to 11 and 13 to 15 which depend respectively
therefrom, as being obvious under § 103(a) over the combined
teachings of Bazinet and Vasandani.
The obviousness rejection of claim 16 is sustained because
Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for this claim
apart from the arguments presented for claim 8 (App. Br. 5).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Bazinet does not teach or suggest access checking logic
disposed in a first view containing a linkage to a second view, as set
forth in independent claim 4.
Bazinet discloses or suggests “processing said selected view to
identify a method call to access checking logic,” as set forth in
independent claims 8 and 12.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner erred in
rejecting (i) claims 4, 6, 7, and 17 under § 103(a) as being obvious in
view of the teachings of Bazinet and Vasandani, and (ii) claim 5 as
being obvious in view of the teachings of Bazinet, Vasandani, and
Schenk. On the other hand, we find that the Examiner did not err in
Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

11
rejecting claims 8 to 16 under § 103(a) as being obvious in view of the
teachings of Bazinet and Vasandani.

ORDER
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4
to 7 and 17 under § 103(a).
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8 to
16 under § 103(a).
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)(v).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

12
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge, CONCURRING-IN-
PART:
I would reverse all of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 4-17.
Appellant’s Specification does not provide any express
definition for what constitutes a “view,” as recited in claim 4. Nor has
Appellant or the Examiner proffered any definition for this term in
their respective filings (see App. Br. 2-12; Ans. 3-15; Reply Br. 2-8).
The Specification does, however, state that “the first and second views
can be [Java server pages]” (Spec. 5; see also claim 6). Because Java
server pages are software code, I understand a “view,” then, to be
software code. I further understand the “view” to be distinct from a
“rendering of [a] view” (see, e.g., claim 8), only the latter term
referring to a displayed image. That is, I understand independent
claim 4 – which recites an application framework, a first view, and
access checking logic – to be solely directed to software per se.
Similarly, I understand independent claim 16 to be directed towards a
method of writing computer code. Claims 4 and 16 are not directed to
either a machine or a transformation of a machine.
Turning to the rejections, the Examiner’s conclusions seem to
be based upon the premise that a view corresponds to a rendered
image instead of the software code that can be used to generate a
rendered image. See Ans. 4 (stating that the first view corresponds to
Bazinet’s web page 502 depicted in figure 5); see, also, Ans. 12
(stating that “the portal application generate [sic] a page (equivalent
Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

13
to2 applicant’s first view)”). Regardless of what the Examiner’s
interpretations may actually be, though, I agree with Appellant (Reply
Br. 5-6) and the Majority (Maj. Opinion 7) that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie showing that Bazinet discloses
“access checking logic disposed in [the] first view” as recited by
independent claim 4. As such, I agree with the Majority’s decision
(Maj. Opinion 7-8) to reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 4-7 and 17.
Unlike the Majority, though (see Maj. Opinion 8-10), I would
also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-16. I find it
immaterial that independent claims 8, 12 and 16 “do not recite access
checking logic being present in the first or selected view in addition to
the link or linkage to the second or different view” (Maj. Opinion 8).
Based upon my understanding of the meaning of the term “view,”
sufficient grounds exist to reverse the rejection of claims 8 and 12
because the Examiner has not established that Bazinet discloses the
limitation “processing said selected view to identify a method call to
access checking logic.” Similarly, the Examiner has not established
that Bazinet discloses “composing a server page to include a reference
to said access checking logic” as set forth by independent claim 16.

2 I further understand the Examiner to have meant that the page
corresponds to – as opposed to being “equivalent to” – the first view.
Appeal 2009-008210
Application 10/759,409

14

KIS

CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 3020
BOCA RATON, FL 33487