Ex Parte JAIN et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 201613543628 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation