Ex Parte Anderson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 3, 2012

10408079 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 3, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SCOTT WILLIAM ANDERSON
____________
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,0791
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on April 4, 2003. This application claims priority from provisional
application 60/369,722, filed on April 4, 2002. The real party in interest is
Ocwen Technology Xchange, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 77-108. Br. 1.2 Claims 1-76 have
been cancelled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2008).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method, system, and computer program product
for providing selective access to specific reports and data fields. Spec.
¶ [0002].
Illustrative Claim
77. A method for providing user access to investment
reports, the method comprising:

applying deal restrictions to data in an investment
database based on information received from a user;

applying role restrictions to the data based on
information received from the user;

applying period restrictions to the data based on data
availability;

providing a list of available standard reports to the user,
based on the deal restrictions, the role restrictions, and the
period restrictions; and

formatting and outputting a selected report to the user.

2 All references to the Brief are to the Brief filed on August 25, 2006, which
supersedes the Brief filed on April 9, 2009.
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

3
Prior Art Relied Upon
Gupta US 6,516,315 B1 Feb. 4, 2003
(filed Nov. 5, 1999)
Rogers US 6,859,805 B1 Feb. 22, 2005
(filed Nov. 29, 1999)

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 77-108 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Rogers and Gupta. Ans. 3-9.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the combination of Rogers and Gupta fails to
teach or suggest “applying deal restrictions to data in an investment database
based on information received from a user,” and “applying role restrictions
to the data based on information received from the user,” as recited in
independent claim 77, and similarly recited in independent claims 85 and
103. Br. 6. In particular, Appellant argues that Rogers discloses whether
there is a role in a security system that corresponds directly to a user,
whereas the claimed invention is directed to applying role restrictions to data
based on information received from a user. Id. at 6-7. Appellant also
alleges that Gupta does not teach or suggest receiving deal restriction from a
user or applying such restrictions to data in an investment database because
Gupta fails to mention an investment database, information received by a
user, or deal restrictions. Id. at 7.
Further, Appellant contends that the Examiner provides an insufficient
rationale to combine Rogers and Gupta. Id. at 16. Additionally, Appellant
argues that since Rogers discloses generating all the data in the system into
one report, Rogers has no need to keep track of access to data objects or
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

4
what type of actions each user can perform on data objects. Id. at 17.
Therefore, Appellant alleges that combining Gupta with Rogers would
destroy Rogers’ principle of operation. Id.
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Rogers’ disclosure of a process for viewing a
report, which entails a user entering both a user identifier and user role
before authorizing the user to access the report, teaches or suggests
“applying role restrictions to the data based on information received from
the user,” as recited in independent claim 77, and similarly recited in
independent claims 85 and 103. Ans. 9-10.3 The Examiner also finds that
Gupta discloses determining the relationship between a user and data object,
determining the security classification of each relationship, and only
allowing a user to gain access to data objects that the user has relationships
with (i.e., allowing a physician to access a patient’s folder because the
physician has a relationship with the patient). Id. at 10-11. Therefore, the
Examiner finds that Gupta teaches or suggests “applying deal restrictions to
data in an investment database based on information received from a user,”
as claimed. Id.
Further, the Examiner finds that there is a sufficient rationale to
combine Rogers and Gupta. Id. at 16. Additionally, the Examiner finds that
combining Gupta with Rogers would not destroy the functionality of Rogers
because their respective inventions could be used to enhance security
features for optimized security in a report. Id. at 16-17.

3 All references to the Answer are to the Answer mailed on March 19, 2008,
which replaced the Answer mailed on October 31, 2006.
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

5
II. ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Rogers
and Gupta renders independent claims 77, 85, and 103 unpatentable? In
particular, the issue turns on whether:
(a) the proffered combination teaches or suggests “applying deal
restrictions to data in an investment database based on information received
from a user,” as recited in independent claim 77, and similarly recited in
independent claims 85 and 103;
(b) the proffered combination teaches or suggests “applying role
restrictions to the data based on information received from the user,” as
recited in independent claim 77, and similarly recited in independent claims
85 and 103;
(c) the Examiner provides a sufficient rationale for the proffered
combination; and
(d) modifying Rogers would effectively change Roger’s principle
of operation or otherwise render Rogers inoperable for its intended purpose.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (hereinafter “FF”) are shown by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Rogers
FF 1. Rogers discloses determining whether there is a role in a
security system that corresponds directly to a user. Col. 3, ll. 49-52. Rogers
also discloses determining whether there are any secondary roles that
correspond indirectly to the user. Id. at ll. 52-53. Further, Rogers discloses
combining the roles to create a list of security identifiers that act as a
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

6
security clearance for the user. Id. at ll. 53-55. Rogers discloses comparing
this security clearance to the security tag in order to derive a subset of pages
in a report that can be reviewed by the user. Id. at ll. 55-57.
FF 2. Rogers discloses using a query data source to retrieve data from
a database or other data source. Col. 8, ll. 65-67.
FF 3. Rogers discloses that it is possible to have different security
needs for different parts of data for the same customer. Col. 10, ll. 35-37.
For example, Rogers discloses that employees in the Customer Support
group can only see Customer Problem data, the Finance group can only see
sale forecast data for a customer, only allowing Production to see data
related to committed orders, and allowing the Sales Representative to see all
data for the customer. Id. at ll. 37-43.
FF 4. Rogers’ figure 8 illustrates a process of viewing a report having
page-based security. Col. 13, ll. 19-21. At step 802, Rogers discloses that
the user logs in by entering a user identifier and the user’s roles, if any. Id.
at ll. 21-23. As part of this step, Rogers discloses ensuring that the user is
authorized to access the report prior to retrieving the report. Id. at ll. 23-25.
Gupta
FF 5. Gutpa discloses a method that provides access control to
information on a computer system, in which a user can access only those
data objects to which they have an appropriate security classification. Col.
2, ll. 27-31.
FF 6. When a user asks for information about a data object, Gupta
discloses that the system determines each relationship between the user and
the data objects, and determines the security classification for each
relationship. Col. 3, ll. 25-28. In particular, Gupta discloses an example
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

7
whereby a physician may have a relationship with a patient because the
physician serves the role of the patient’s primary care provider. Col. 4, ll.
57-59. Consequently, Gupta discloses that the physician has access to the
patient’s folder. Id. at ll. 59-60.

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 77, 85, and 103
We do not find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 77, 85, and 103. In particular, independent claim 77
recites, inter alia, 1) “applying deal restrictions to data in an investment
database based on information received from a user;” and 2) “applying role
restrictions to the data based on information received from the user.”
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section, Gupta discloses a system
that determines the relationship between a user and data objects, and also
determines the security classification for each relationship. FF 6. In
particular, Gupta discloses that since a physician is a patient’s primary care
provider, the physician has a relationship with the patient and, therefore, has
certain access rights to the patient’s folder. Id. Consequently, we agree with
the Examiner that Gupta discloses granting the physician access to the
patient’s folder only if the physician has a relationship with the patient. Ans.
4 and 11. Put another way, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood that Gupta’s cited disclosure applies deal restrictions to
data stored in the patient’s folder based on information received from the
physician, such as whether or not the physician indicated that he or she was
the patient’s primary care provider.
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

8
Moreover, to the extent that Appellant’s argument is premised on
whether Gupta teaches or suggests applying deal restrictions to data in an
“investment database,” we are not persuaded. Br. 7-8. Appellant cannot
rely solely upon the content or type of information saved or stored in the
claimed “database” to patentably distinguish independent 77 over the prior
art of record. The content or type of such information is non-functional
descriptive material, which is not entitled to any patentable weight. See In
re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Lowry does not claim
merely the information content of a memory. . . . Nor does he seek to patent
the content of information resident in a database.”). See also Ex parte Nehls,
88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84
USPQ2d 1272, 1274-75 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, slip op. 06-1003
(Fed. Cir. June 2006) (Rule 36). Thus, we find that Gupta teaches or
suggests “applying deal restrictions to data in an investment database based
on information received from a user,” as recited in independent claim 77.
Next, Rogers discloses determining whether there are any primary or
secondary roles that correspond directly or indirectly to a user. FF 1.
Further, Rogers discloses that when the user logs into the system, he or she
enters both a user identifier and any applicable user roles. FF 4. Prior to
retrieving a report, Rogers discloses using both the user identifier and roles,
if any, to ensure that the user is authorized to access the report. Id.
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that Rogers discloses
determining if the user is allowed access to a report by applying role
restrictions based on the user identifier and roles, if any, entered by the user.
Ans. 3 and 10. Thus, we find that Roger’s teaches or suggest “applying role
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

9
restrictions to the data based on information received from the user,” as
recited in independent claim 77.
Rationale to Combine
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
provides an insufficient rationale to combine Rogers and Gupta. Br. 16.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Court further instructs that:
[o]ften, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; . . . and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in a the fashion claimed
by the patent at issue.

Id. at 418. Additionally, the Court instructs that:
“[[r]]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”… However, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

Id. (citation omitted).
Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s
identification of a suggestion in the prior art for the proposed modification
suffices as an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the prima facie case of obviousness. In summary, we find that an
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

10
ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the claimed invention would have
combined Rogers’ disclosure of applying role restrictions based on a user
identifier and roles, if any, entered by a user (FFs 1 and 4), with Gupta’s
disclosure of applying deal restrictions to data stored in a patient’s folder
based on information received from a physician. FF 6. This proffered
combination would predictably result in a method that provides enhanced
security by only granting a user access to data in which they have an
appropriate security classification. FF 5.
Further, as prescribed by the controlling case law, while it is often
necessary for an Examiner to identify a reason for combining the familiar
elements obtained from the prior art in establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness, the identification of such a reason is not a sine qua non
requirement. See KSR 550 U.S. at 418-19. So long as the Examiner
provides an articulated reasoning with some kind of a rational underpinning
to substantiate the obviousness rejection, such a conclusion is proper. See
id. at 418. In this case, the Examiner provided more than just a mere
conclusory statement. The Examiner states that it would have been obvious
to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the claimed invention “to
combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Gupta
would have allowed Rogers’ system to grant or deny access to the data if the
security classifications are not met (Gupta, col. 2, lines 52-60).” Ans. 4 and
16. Moreover, that Examiner states that “[s]uch a combination would add
further and increased security for viewing data. Further it is a goal of Gupta
to provide a method to precisely control part of the data object that a user
can access (col. 2 lines 33-35, Gupta). Such a goal would prov[e] useful to
Rogers when a desire for enhanced security features and different security
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

11
rules is mentioned (Rogers at col. 2 lines 54-60).” Id. at 16. In our view,
such statements suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning
to support the proffered combination.
Changing the Principle of Operation or Rendering Inoperable for its
Intended Purpose

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that combining Gupta
with Rogers would destroy Rogers’ principle of operation. Br. 17. We find
no evidence in the record before us that Rogers’ system, which applies role
restrictions based on a user identifier and roles, if any, entered by a user,
would no longer operate if modified to include Gupta’s disclosure of
applying deal restrictions to data stored in a patient’s folder based on
information received from a physician. In particular, it is not apparent to us
how combining Gupta’s deal restrictions with Rogers’ role restrictions
would prohibit Roger’s system from tracking data objects and generating
one report that applies different security rules to each data object printed in
such report. Therefore, we conclude that Gupta’s disclosure of applying
deal restrictions to data stored in a patient’s folder based on information
received from a physician does not undesirably encumber the functionality
of Rogers’ system, nor does it fundamentally change Rogers’ disclosure of
applying role restrictions based on a user identifier and roles, if any, entered
by a user. As a result, we find that the Examiner’s proposed modification
would not change Rogers’ principle of operation or otherwise render Rogers
inoperable for its intended purpose. It follows that the Examiner has not
erred in concluding that the combination of Rogers and Gupta renders
independent claim 77 unpatentable.
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

12
Independent claims 85 and 103 either recite the same or similar claim
limitations as independent claim 77. See Br. 5-8. Therefore, for the same
reasons discussed supra, the Examiner has not erred in concluding that the
combination of Rogers and Gupta renders independent claims 85 and 103
unpatentable.
Claims 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93-102,104, 105, and 107
Appellant merely reiterates what the disputed claim limitations recite
and makes general allegations as to the teachings of either Rogers or Gupta.
See Br. 8-9 and 12-15. Merely reciting the language of the claims and
asserting that the cited prior art references do not disclose each claim
limitation is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (“A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). It
follows that the Examiner has not erred in concluding that the combination
of Rogers and Gupta renders dependent claims 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 90
91, 93-102, 104, 105, and 107 unpatentable.
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

13
Claims 80, 84, 88, 91, and 108
Appellant contends that Rogers’ disclosure of only allowing
employees in the Finance Group to see forecast data for a customer fails to
teach or suggest “wherein the user is selected from a group consisting of an
investor and a trustee,” as recited in dependent claims 80, 84, 88, 91, and
108. Br. 10 and 12-13. The Examiner finds that Rogers’ disclosure of a
Finance Group, whereby a Sales Representative is a trustee and a customer
is an investor, teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation. Ans. 12-13.
We agree with the Examiner.
We find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily
appreciated that Rogers’ disclosure of a Sale Representative and customer
(FF 3) teaches or suggests a trustee and investor, respectively, because the
Sale Representative amounts to a person in the Finance group who holds a
position of trust or responsibility for the benefit of the customer.
Nonetheless, similar to our analysis supra, we note that Appellant
cannot rely solely upon the type of the claimed “user” to patentably
distinguish dependent claims 80, 84, 88, 91, and 108 over the prior art of
record. The type of user is non-functional descriptive material, which is not
entitled to any patentable weight. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583; see also
Nehls, 88 USPQ2d at 1887-90; Curry, 84 USPQ2d at 1274-75. Thus, we
find that Rogers teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation. It follows
that the Examiner has not erred in concluding that the combination of
Rogers and Gupta renders dependent claims 80, 84, 88, 91, and 108
unpatentable.
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

14
Claims 82, 89, 92, and 106
Appellant offers the same arguments set forth in response to the
obviousness rejection of independent claims 77, 85, and 103 to rebut the
obviousness rejection of independent claims 82, 89, 92, and 106. See Br.
10-14. We have already addressed these arguments in our discussion of
independent claims 77, 85, and 103, and we found them unpersuasive.
Further, Appellant contends that the combination of Rogers and Gupta fails
to teach or suggest “performing a search of an investment database based on
information in the report,” as recited in independent claim 82, and similarly
recited in independent claims 89 and 106. Br. 11. In particular, Appellant
argues that while Rogers discloses that a user specifies a query, Rogers fails
to teach or suggest performing a search of an investment database, or
performing a search based on the information in a report, as claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds that Rogers’ disclosure of using a query to retrieve
information from a database, in conjunction with a Finance group which
implies the use of an investment database, teaches or suggests the disputed
claim limitation. Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner.
We find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that
Rogers’ disclosure of using a query to retrieve data from a database (FF 2)
amounts to performing a search of a database based on information provided
by a user. Moreover, we find that Rogers’ disclosure of allowing employees
of the Finance Group to only see sales forecast data for a customer (FF 3)
would have suggested to an ordinarily skilled artisan that such data may be
stored in an investment database.
Nonetheless, similar to our analysis supra, we note that Appellant
cannot rely solely upon the content or type of information saved or stored in
Appeal 2009-013586
Application 10/408,079

15
the claimed “database” to patentably distinguish independent claims 82, 89,
and 106 over the prior art of record. The content or type of such information
is non-functional descriptive material, which is not entitled to any patentable
weight. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583; see also Nehls, 88 USPQ2d at 1887-90;
Curry, 84 USPQ2d at 1274-75. Thus, we find that Rogers teaches or
suggests the disputed claim limitation. It follows that the Examiner has not
erred in concluding that the combination of Rogers and Gupta renders
independent claims 82, 89, 92, and 106 unpatentable.

V. CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 77-108 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 77-108.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc