Ex Parte Kapadia et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201713608125 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/608,125 09/10/2012 Kaushal Kiran Kapadia IN920110216US1 5721 63400 7590 IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON 15950 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 225 DALLAS, TX 75248 09/05/2017 EXAMINER PATEL, ASHOKKUMAR B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2017 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): mail@davidjudson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NITIN BAHADUR and KIREETI KOMPELLA Appeal 2015-005751 Application 13/608,125 Technology Center 2400 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2015-005751 Application 13/608,125 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 are independent claims. The claims relate generally to identity context-based access control, and more specifically to “an identity context-driven approach to control whether users are permitted access to enterprise resources.” Spec. 1:1—7. An identity context is generated based on commonality of identity data between users. Id. at 19:11—20:20. Exemplary identity data for users includes location, names, and designation. Id. at 19:15—21. “[Combinations or permutations of the attributes are then processed to create additional possible identity contexts,” resulting in an identity context where users have multiple attributes in common. Id. at 20:14—18. An expression representing an identity context is then used in place of a role to define access in an access control policy. Id. at 21:8—14. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. An access control method, comprising: generating at least one identity context by identifying combinations of a set of attributes common to a cluster of users; replacing at least one role in an access policy with an expression associated with the at least one identity context to generate an identity context-based access policy; and in response to an access request, applying the identity- based access policy to control access to a resource; wherein at least one of the generating, replacing and applying steps are carried out in software executing in a hardware element. REJECTIONS Claims 1—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Thomas (US 2009/0300002 Al; Apr. 12, 2009) and Hildebrand (US 2008/0288330 Al; Dec. 28, 2008). Final Act. 5-15. 2 Appeal 2015-005751 Application 13/608,125 OPINION The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Thomas and Hildebrand. Regarding the replacing step, the Examiner finds Hildebrand discloses “an access risk evaluation is utilized to replace a previous access role,” and the access risk “evaluation is an identity context for the users within the group and that risk evaluation generates a new access policy.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner further explains “that the risk scores such as baseline access ri[s]k score, compensating access risk factor scores, and the composite access risk scores are the expressions that are utilized to replace the roles of a user with an expression of their various risks.” Id. at 2—3 (citing Hildebrand 1 55). In the Answer, the Examiner states the access risk score is used “to active compensating controls which are policies and security features,” and Hildebrand teaches “replacing” because “the combined scores are used to determine an individual’s access rights instead of using that user’s predetermined role.” Ans. 15. Appellants argue Hildebrand does not teach the recited replacing step because Hildebrand does not teach an expression associated with an identity context and “in Hildebrand, there is nothing replaced - as the claim element requires.” Ap. Br. 10.1 In particular, Appellants contend Hildebrand’s access risk scores, which the Examiner equates to the claimed expression associated with the identity context, “do not replace anything, let alone a ‘role’ set forth [in] an actual ‘access policy.’” Id. at 11; see also Reply Br. 6 (“The Examiner’s read here is mere hindsight that ignores (i) the word 1 Appellants present other arguments, which we do not address because this issue is dispositive of the Appeal. 3 Appeal 2015-005751 Application 13/608,125 ‘replacing,’ (ii) that what is replaced in the access policy is the ‘role,’ and (iii) that the role is replaced with the expression itself (and not any particular result of applying the expression).”). Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred. Even assuming the Examiner’s finding that Hildebrand’s access score teaches an expression associated with an identity context is correct, we find nothing in Hildebrand suggesting replacing a role in an access policy with the computed access score, as required by the independent claims. Hildebrand discloses identifying various risks associated with a user, where those risks may be based on various factors including a user’s role(s), attribute(s), entitlements (such as rights to access specific resources), and responsibilities. Hildebrand 62—74. Hildebrand may also identify access risk associated with system resources. Id. 97—61. Hildebrand also considers compensating controls that a system may have in place, which may mitigate certain access risks associated with resources or users. Id. H 75—77. After identifying the access risks in the system (i.e., risk associated with users, resources, and compensating controls), Hildebrand calculates risk scores. Id. 79-93. Hildebrand also discloses optionally combining the risk access scores of individual users to generate a combined score for a group of users, where the group may be defined in various ways, including by department or geographic location. Id. H 15, 93, 94. Hildebrand discloses “[sjystems and methods for measuring access risk associated with an enterprise.” Hildebrand Abstract. As cited above, Hildebrand may take into account various properties of users, resources, and policies in determining risk level and risk scores. Hildebrand’s risk assessment system provides an organization with a monitoring and analysis 4 Appeal 2015-005751 Application 13/608,125 tool to evaluate access risk for individuals or groups of individuals. Moreover, Hildebrand at least suggests that an organization may use the generated information to modify or control user access to resources to suit an organization’s level of access risk tolerance. Hildebrand lacks, however, any suggestion of “replacing at least one role in an access policy with” the access risk scores. We find no evidentiary support for the Examiner’s statements to the contrary. Specifically, as discussed above, the Examiner finds Hildebrand discloses using the composite risk scores to replace user’s roles “with an expression of their various risks” and “to determine an individual’s access rights instead of using that user’s predetermined role.” Final Act. 2—3 (citing Hildebrand 155); Ans. 15. The only support the Examiner cites is paragraph 55 of Hildebrand, which simply describes an aspect of calculating access risk scores from the identified access risks. We find nothing in Hildebrand suggesting that the calculated risk score replaces a user’s access rights or “role in an access policy,” as recited in the claims. The Examiner also states that “[a]t-risk individual wills have their access modified by the system’s compensating controls thereby ‘replacing’ their role with their access risk score.” Id. at 15—16. As discussed above, Hildebrand’s compensating controls relate to “procedures, security features, etc. which enterprise 100 may have implemented to manage various access risk.” Hildebrand 175. These compensating controls are described as being a part of the access policy, separate from user’s roles. Id. 75—77. Moreover, Hildebrand discloses considering existing compensating controls when calculating the individual user’s access risk scores. Id. Tflf 79, 80, 85, 5 Appeal 2015-005751 Application 13/608,125 89-94. Thus, although it is true that Hildebrand discloses compensating controls may alter user’s access to resources, neither the compensating controls nor the access risk score replaces a “role in an access policy.” For the reasons discussed above, we determine the Examiner’s finding that Hildebrand teaches or suggests the recited replacing limitation is not supported by substantial evidence. Each rejection on appeal relies on Hildebrand for teaching or suggesting the replacing limitation. For us to sustain the Examiner’s rejections, we would need to resort to impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions to cure the aforementioned deficiency in the factual bases of the rejections. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We decline to engage in such speculation. Constrained by this record, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22, which each recite the disputed replacing limitation, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Thomas and Hildebrand. Dependent claims 2—7, 9—14, and 16—21 depend directly from and incorporate the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to the independent claims, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 2—7, 9-15, and 16—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—22. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation