Ex Parte JAIN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

13543628 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/543,628 07/06/2012
46583 7590 07/05/2016
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P.C.
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. Box 10064
MCLEAN, VA 22102-8064
Bhushan P. JAIN
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.
END920110268US 1 9488
EXAMINER
OKEKE, IZUNNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
docketing@rmsc2.com
lgallaugher@rmsc2.com
dbeltran@rmsc2.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte BHUSHAN P. JAIN, SANDEEP R. PATIL,
SRI RAMANATHAN, GANDHI SIVAKUMAR,
MATTHEW B. TREV ATHAN, and
WIJA YARA TNAM WIJA Y AKUMARAN
Appeal2014-006051
Application 13/543,628
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to determining that the processing
of the at least one of the plurality of objects by the processing unit is
Appeal2014-006051
Application 13/543,628
authorized by the tenant based on a security map provided by the tenant and
accessible by the processing unit within the hardware layer. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
initiating processing, invoked by a user, of at least one of
a plurality of objects in a processing unit of a hardware layer,
wherein the plurality of objects is hosted for a tenant;
determining that the processing of the at least one of the
plurality of objects by the processing unit is authorized by the
tenant based on a security map provided by the tenant and
accessible by the processing unit within the hardware layer; and
allowing the processing of the object based on a result of
the determining.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Amradkar
Beard
US 2010/0125612 Al May 20, 2010
US 8,112,615 Bl Feb. 7, 2012
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 17-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Amradkar.
Claims 6, 7, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Amradkar in view of Beard.
2
Appeal2014-006051
Application 13/543,628
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Amradkar discloses the limitations of "initiating processing" and
"determining that the processing of the at least one of the plurality of objects
by the processing unit is authorized by the tenant based on a security map
provided by the tenant and accessible by the processing unit within the
hardware layer" as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Action and
we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 17-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Appellants argue with respect to claim 1, that Amradkar does not
disclose "initiating processing, invoked by a user, of at least one of a
plurality of objects in a processing unit of a hardware layer, wherein the
plurality of objects is hosted for a tenant" and "determmmg that the
processing of the at least one of the plurality of objects by the processing
unit is authorized by the tenant based on a security map provided by the
tenant and accessible by the processing unit within the hardware layer," as
recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 4).
Appellants in particular argue that Amradkar uses the authentication
database 170 before supplying resources 118 to prevent access by
unauthorized users 155 (App. Br. 5). According to Appellants, since
unauthorized users 15 5 cannot access resources 118, it logically follows that
they cannot invoke resources 118 or initiate processing of resources 118
(App. Br. 5). Appellants argue that Amradkar fails to disclose the recited
"initiating processing" and it further follows that Amradkar does not
3
Appeal2014-006051
Application 13/543,628
disclose "determining that the processing of the at least one of the plurality
of objects by the processing unit is authorized by the tenant based on a
security map provided by the tenant" (App. Br. 5). Appellants argue that
Amradkar verifies whether a user has access rights, including "execute
rights" (App. Br. 7). As such, the user cannot execute a resource without
having the rights to do so (App. Br. 7). Therefore, according to Appellants,
it follows that the user can only execute the resource after the user's execute
right is verified or authenticated (App. Br. 7).
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. At the outset, we note
that nothing in the claim equates "initiating processing" with executing one
of the objects, and nothing in the claim precludes authentication for
accessing an object as tantamount to "initiating processing." We agree with
the Examiner's broad but reasonable finding that Amradkar discloses that
users initiate processing by submitting a request to access (i.e., read, write,
execute) an indicated resource in a resource instance claim 161A (para. 29)
alongside a security token for authentication and use right authorization
(para. 25) (Ans. 3). Amradkar discloses that upon authentication, the user is
given access (read, right, execute) to the requested resource (para. 26; Ans.
3). For example, a service/resource such as a mailbox is hosted on the
multi-tenant information system (Ans. 3). A user seeks to initiate processing
on the mailbox to access the user's mail (paras. 29 and 30; Ans. 3). The user
initiates processing by submitting a security token comprising a resource
instance claim indicating the resource to be accessed (Ans. 3). After
authentication and user right verification, the user is granted access to the
resource (Ans. 3).
Appellants further argue that Amradkar only discloses authorizing the
user and not a processor of a computer (App. Br. 8). We agree with the
4
Appeal2014-006051
Application 13/543,628
Examiner that Amradkar discloses the authorization of the access (read,
write, execute) before processing the resource (Ans. 4). Amradkar discloses
that a computer system instantiates the online multi-tenancy hosting service
(para. 13; Ans. 4 ). Amradkar further discloses that the computer system of
the invention has a processing unit for carrying out processing as known in
the art (para. 19) and before the processor of the hosting computer processes
the read, write or execute request for its resources, the user has to be
authorized (paras. 25-26; Ans. 4). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner
that Amradkar discloses initiating processing of an object in a processing
unit of a hardware layer.
Appellants argue with respect to claim 11 that Amradkar does not
mention "a security processor" and "an external communication interface,"
let alone "a security processor comprising an external communication
interface" and "a computer-readable memory storing a security map of the
tenant and accessible by the security processor" (App. Br. 9-10).
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
Examiner's findings that Amradkar discloses a computing architecture
having a processor for processing service requests for resources hosted by
the computing device and wherein an authentication database is accessed to
confirm authorization for each service request by a user (Ans. 4; paras. 25
and 26 and Fig. 1 B). The processor of the multi-tenant computing device
communicates with the authentication database through an interface in order
to confirm authorization for each service request by a user (paras. 14 and 15;
Ans. 4). The computer-readable memory stores computer executable
instructions and data structures and the authentication database is one such
memory for security data of the tenant (Ans. 4).
5
Appeal2014-006051
Application 13/543,628
Appellants argue with respect to claim 21 that Amradkar does not
teach "receiving credentials, at a hardware layer" (App. Br. 10-13). We
agree with the Examiner that Amradkar discloses a multi-tenancy computing
system of the invention having a processor (which would be disposed at the
hardware layer of a computing system as known in the art) and wherein the
system receives a security token generated from a user's credentials (Ans. 5;
paras. 25, 34). Amradkar's disclosure of receiving a security token at the
computing system for authorizing the user request for access to the resources
anticipates the limitation of "receiving credentials, at a hardware layer"
(Ans. 5).
Appellants argue with respect to claim 22, that Amradkar does not
disclose "third program instructions to halt the processing of the one object"
(App. Br. 13-14). We agree with the Examiner that Amradkar discloses
computer-executable instructions for performing functions and processing
access to a resource may be denied if it is determined that the user does not
have access right or has an invalid security token (paras. 18, 16; Ans. 5).
Appellants argue with respect to claims 4, 5, 14, 15, 19, 23, and 25,
that Amradkar does not teach "sending a message to the tenant requesting
the security code" (App. Br. 17-20). We agree with the Examiner's finding
that Amradkar discloses that when a user initiates a processing request for
one of the resources on a multi-tenant computing system, it sends its security
code to the computing system for authentication and user right authorization
(para. 25; Ans. 5).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 8-
15, and 17-25.
6
Appeal2014-006051
Application 13/543,628
Claims 6, 7, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue, with respect to claims 6, 7, and 16, that Beard does
not cure the deficiencies of Amradkar identified with respect to independent
claims 1 and 11 (App. Br. 20-22). We do not agree for the reasons
enumerated above, and we agree with the Examiner's finding that Beard
teaches processors such as single cycle RISC CPUs which can execute
different instructions (fetch, decode, execute) within a single cycle (Ans. 6).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 6, 7, and
16.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Amradkar discloses the
limitations of "initiating processing" and "determining that the processing of
the at least one of the plurality of objects by the processing unit is authorized
by the tenant based on a security map provided by the tenant and accessible
by the processing unit within the hardware layer" as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-25 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
7