Ex Parte Haselsteiner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2016

13120849 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/120,849 03/24/2011
65913 7590 07/28/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ernst Haselsteiner
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
81355292 US05 3368
EXAMINER
LE,KHOIV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERNST HASELSTEINER
Appeal2015-000267
Application 13/120,849
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-21. Claim 14 has been cancelled.
(App. Br. 13). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-000267
Application 13/120,849
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to a system for managing access
rights to an object of an object oriented programming language. (Spec. 1 ).
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A device for managing access rights to an object of an object
oriented programming language, the device comprising:
a processing unit, wherein the processing unit is configured to
determine information indicative of the access rights to the object;
a memory management unit, wherein the memory management
unit is configured to store the determined information, act as a cache
for access control decisions, the access control decisions being
performed only once, and store positive results as a memory
management window.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4--13, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hans et al. (US 2004/0199787 Al; published Oct. 7,
2004).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hans and Isoda (2009/0064277 Al;
published Mar. 5, 2009).
Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hans and Schmidt et al. (US
2005/0262493 Al; published Nov. 24, 2005).
2
Appeal2015-000267
Application 13/120,849
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Hans discloses a processing
unit "configured to determine information indicative of the access rights to
the object," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 12?
The Examiner relies on processing unit 120 in Hans to disclose the
claimed processing unit and security manager 112 to disclose determining
information indicative of the access rights. (Final Act. 3, 5; Ans. 4).
Appellant contends security manager 112 in Hans is not the same as
processing unit 120. (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2). Accordingly, Appellant
argues Hans' processing unit is not configured to determine information
indicative of the access rights to the object. (App. Br. 5).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings. (Final Act. 3, 5; Ans. 4). In the Specification,
Appellant defines a "processing unit" as "a unit, which may be used for
executing a sequence of stored instructions, also called a program." (Spec.
4). Similarly, Hans describes that its "processing unit 120 is also provided
for executing the security manager 112." (Hans i-f 35). Hans states "the
security manager 112 can examine the capabilities list 113 associated with
the application program 111 to determine whether the application program
111 is authorized to perform a requested access." (Hans i-f 36). Based on
this disclosure, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Hans
discloses a processing unit "configured to determine information indicative
of the access rights to the object."
3
Appeal2015-000267
Application 13/120,849
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding Hans discloses a memory
management unit configured to "store positive results as a memory
management window," as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent claim 12?
The Examiner relies on memory 110 to disclose the claimed memory
management window and the memory management unit. (Final Act. 3, 5;
Ans. 4--5). Appellant argues Hans "is silent regarding any management
windows." (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings. (Final Act. 3, 5; Final Act. 5---6). Appellant has not
explicitly defined a "memory management window" in the Specification,
nor has Appellant offered a definition in the briefs. Appellant's
Specification states "a window in the memory management unit may be set
up, which allows access to the memory" (Spec. 5) and "a window in the
memory management unit is set up, which allows access to the memory"
(Spec. 10). Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, we find a memory
management window allows access to the memory. We, therefore, agree
with the Examiner's findings that Hans' memory 110, which is described as
comprising any known type of card device memory such as random access
memory (RAM), cache or the like, allows access to the memory, and
therefore discloses the disputed limitation. (See Ans. 5---6, citing Hans i-fi-1 44,
138, Fig. 1, Fig. 6). See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(interpretation of references "is not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Hans discloses the disputed limitation. We therefore sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 12, and dependent
4
Appeal2015-000267
Application 13/120,849
claims 2-11, 13, and 15-21, which were not argued separately. (See App.
Br. 12).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13 and
15-21 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5