Ex Parte Yang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2017

14046063 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2017)

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.
14/046,063 10/04/2013 Jianping YANG B117 3979
36378 7590
VMWARE, INC.
DARRYL SMITH
3401 Hillview Ave.
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
05/18/2017 EXAMINER
HO, DAO Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipteam @ vmware. com
ipadmin@vmware.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIANPING YANG
Appeal 2017-002952
Application 14/046,0631
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant appeals 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1,
2, 4—14, 17, 18, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 3, 15, 16, and 19 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is VMware, Inc. (App.
Br. 3).
Appeal 2017-002952
Application 14/046,063
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. In a virtualized computing system having a plurality of
inventory objects and an access control subsystem that manages
permissions to perform actions on the inventory objects, a
method of managing the permissions comprising:
detecting an association of a tag with an inventory object,
the tag defining one or more users and one or more privileges;
in response to said detecting, generating an access control
label of the inventory object based on the tag, the access control
label specifying user privileges for the inventory object based on
the users and privileges that are defined by the tag; and
permitting or denying operations to be performed on the
inventory object based on the generated access control label.
REJECTION2
Claims 1, 2, 4—14, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kahn (US 7,185,192 Bl; published Feb.
27, 2007) and Butikofer (US 8,850,434 Bl; issued Sept. 30, 2014). (Final
Act. 5-11).
ISSUES
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Kahn teaches “generating an
access control label of the inventory object based on the tag,” as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 13?
2 The Examiner has withdrawn (Adv. Act. 2) the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection
of claims 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 (Final Act. 4).
2
Appeal 2017-002952
Application 14/046,063
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding Kahn teaches “a separate
access control label is generated for each combination of the users and
privileges that are defined by the tag,” as recited in claim 4 and similarly
recited in claim 10?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions and adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3, 5—11); (2) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2); and (3) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal
Brief (Ans. 4—6). With respect to the claims argued by Appellant, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
Issue 1
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Kahn teaches
“generating an access control label of the inventory object based on the tag”
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 13. (App. Br. 7—9;
Reply Br. 2—3). Specifically, Appellant argues the claims “require two
separate constructs — the [(1)] ‘tags’ which are used to generate [(2)]
‘access control labels,”’ but Kahn only teaches “a single construct — the
rules of Kahn.” (App. Br. 8). Appellant further argues Kahn’s access
control list (ACL) “is merely the compilation of [Kahn’s] policy” and
“cannot be construed as a ‘rule.’” (Reply Br. 3).
3
Appeal 2017-002952
Application 14/046,063
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Ans. 4), and we agree,
Kahn teaches “a policy,” i.e., a tag, “about who (e.g., what users) should be
able to access what resources (e.g., files, directories) in what manner(s) (e.g.,
read and/or write and/or execute)” (Kahn 3:49—55). The Examiner further
finds (Ans. 4), and we agree, Khan discloses that to “implement and/or
actually enforce such a policy, the site security administrator might
establish . . . permission settings or ACL lists for each resource,” i.e., “ACL
lists are created with the intent of reflecting a security policy” (Kahn 3:55—
4:9).
Appellant’s argument that Kahn’s rules are “a single type of
construct” (App. Br. 8) does not persuasively respond to the Examiner’s
findings that Kahn’s permission settings and ACL lists, i.e., “access control
labels,” are generated based on Kahn’s policies, i.e., “tags” (Ans. 4; see
Kahn 3:49-4:9). Indeed, Kahn’s “permissions and ACL lists are created
with the intent of reflecting a security policy.” (Kahn 4:5—7). further,
Appellant’s argument that Kahn’s ACL lists are not rules (Reply Br. 3) does
not address the Examiner’s finding that Kahn’s ACL lists specify user
privileges for objects (Ans. 4), as required by the claim. Indeed, Kahn
teaches an ACL “list[s] all users for a file that have read access to the file,
write access to the file, and execute access to the file” (Kahn 1:42—56).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Kahn teaches “generating an access control label of the inventory object
based on the tag” within the meaning of claims 1, 7, and 13.
4
Appeal 2017-002952
Application 14/046,063
Issue 2
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Kahn teaches “a
separate access control label is generated for each combination of the users
and privileges that are defined by the tag,” as recited in claim 4 and similarly
recited in claim 10. (App. Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 3—4). Specifically, Appellant
argues Kahn does not “generate multiple constructs that determine whether a
resource is permitted to be accessed.” (App. Br. 10). Appellant further
argues, in Kahn, “only a single ACL list [is] created for one or more
policies.” (Reply Br. 4).
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Kahn’s permission settings or ACL lists, i.e.,
“access control labels,” are generated to implement Kahn’s policies, i.e.,
“tags” (Ans. 4; see Kahn 3:49-4:9).
Appellant’s argument that Kahn generates a single ACL rather than
generating multiple ACLs (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4) is not commensurate
with the scope of the claims. The claims do not recite language requiring
multiple ACLs, nor do the claims recite language precluding a single ACL.
We agree with the Examiner’s broad, but reasonable, interpretation that a
policy with only a single user-privilege combination generates permission
settings or an ACL list for each user-privilege combination in that policy,
i.e., the single user-privilege combination. (See Ans. 5). Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Kahn teaches “a separate
access control label is generated for each combination of the users and
privileges that are defined by the tag,” within the meaning of claims 4
and 10.
5
Appeal 2017-002952
Application 14/046,063
Remaining Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for dependent claims
2, 5, 6, 8,9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20, which depend directly or indirectly
from claims 1,7, and 13. (See App. Br. 7—10). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded of error, and we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims
2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—14, 17, 18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kahn and Butikofer 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6