Ex Parte HaselsteinerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 26, 201613120849 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation