11359212 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2013)

Ex Parte Britton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 2013

11359212 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2013)

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. 11/359,212 02/22/2006 Kathryn H. Britton RSW920050167US1 (221) 9392 46320 7590 11/13/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER PARTHASARATHY, PRAMILA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2436 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/13/2013 PAPERPAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KATHRYN H. BRITTON, DIETER BUEHLER, WILLIAM P. HIGGINS, YI-HSIU H. WEI, and CHUNHUI YANG ____________________ Appeal 2011-007391 Application 11/359,212 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007391 Application 11/359,212 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A data processing system for role-based access control management for multiple heterogeneous application components comprising: a virtual role framework coupled to a composite application executing in memory by a processor of a data processing system and enabled to manage a plurality of virtual roles for the composite application; a component coupled to the composite application; a security policy defined for the component, the security policy mapping at least one specific role for the component to a corresponding virtual role for the composite application; and, binding logic comprising program code produced from the security policy, the binding logic executing in the memory of the data processing system and providing an interface for the virtual role framework to operations for the specific role of the component. Rejection on Appeal1 The Examiner rejected claims 1-16 on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over co-pending 1 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, second paragraph, have been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 6. Appeal 2011-007391 Application 11/359,212 3 applications 11/382,104 and 11/221,630, and U.S. Patent No. 6,950,825. Non-Final Rejection 2-4; Ans. 2. 2 The Examiner rejected claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Barto (US 7,596,803 B1, Sep. 29, 2009). Non-Final Rejection 5-6; Ans. 5. 3 Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the “Examiner (1) has failed to properly construe the claim terms ‘role’ and ‘security policy’; and (2) has failed to accurately compare Appellants’ properly construed claim limitations incorporating the claim terms ‘role’ and [‘]security policy’ to Barto.” Reply Br. 6. 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting claim 1 because the “Examiner appears not to have attempted to show any analogue within Barto for ‘binding logic including program code produced from the security policy’ and instead compares the ‘binding logic’ directly to a ‘rules engine’ without accounting for how the rules engine has been produced.” Reply Br. 9. 3. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting claim 1 because Barto does not disclose, inter alia: (l) virtual role framework coupled to a composite application; (2) security policy defined for the component; (3) the security policy mapping at least one specific role for the component to a 2 We pro forma affirm the double patenting rejection which was not contested by Appellants. 3 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Non-Final Rejection mailed November 24, 2009, the Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed August 23, 2010, the Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 12, 2010, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 12, 2011. Appeal 2011-007391 Application 11/359,212 4 corresponding virtual role for the composite application; (4) binding logic comprising program code produced from the security policy; and (5) binding logic providing an interface for the virtual role framework to operations for the specific role of the component, while applying the ordinary meaning of “virtual role framework”, “composite application”, “component” . . . and “interface” . . . . App. Br. 15. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-16 as being anticipated because Barto fails to teach the argued limitations? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ above contentions 1-3. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. As to Appellants’ above contentions 1 and 2, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments. Appellants did not explicitly define the terms “role,” “security policy,” or “binding logic” in the Specification. The Specification discloses: As shown in Figure 1, one or more components 140 within a composite application 120 can include both a security policy 150 and binding logic 160. The security policy 150 can map Appeal 2011-007391 Application 11/359,212 5 roles specific to the components 140 to corresponding virtual roles 130 defined for the composite application 120. The binding logic 160, in turn, can be generated from the security policy 150 in order to provide a gateway interface from users 110 interacting with the composite application 120 to the operations of the specific roles for the components 140. Spec. ¶ [0019]. Although this disclosure is not limiting of the claimed invention, it provides context for which the terms “role,” “security policy,” or “binding logic” are interpreted. The Examiner found that Barto discloses: The General Security Policy Developer, facilitates (manages) definition and generation of security access rules that to be provided to security module 50 as part of an overall security policy and Aspects (composite applications) 20 of the Enterprise based on the rule and current data; Context Requestor, that defines the current role of the user of the Enterprise System . . . a rule engine within the security module . . . security regulations that limits the role of the user specifically include or exclude from accessing the Enterprise System and applying the specific rule based on the requested application . . . the rules engine provides an interpretation of a security module, for example, a user belonging to the Engineer group, will be associated with the specific security regulations based upon the operation selected and role that corresponds to the Context Requestor. Ans. 8 (citing Fig. 1, col. 2, l. 30-col. 3, l. 14, Fig. 5, col. 4, ll. 25-41, col. 6, ll. 4-32). Based on our review of Barto and consistent with the Examiner’s stated positions (Ans. 8-9), we interpret the claim terms “role,” “security policy,” and “binding logic” using the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ disclosure – to respectively include the role as Appeal 2011-007391 Application 11/359,212 6 defined by the Context Requestor, the security regulations that limit the role of the user, and the rules engine. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As to Appellants’ above contention 3, we note that Appellants’ arguments amount to no more than reciting the claim features and generally alleging that Barto is deficient. Merely pointing out certain claim features recited in independent claim 1 and nakedly asserting that Barto fails to disclose such features does not amount to a separate patentability argument. 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.”). On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error regarding the aforementioned disputed limitations in contention 3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-16. CONCLUSIONS We pro forma affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-16 on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being Appeal 2011-007391 Application 11/359,212 7 unpatentable over co-pending applications 11/382,104 and 11/221,630, and U.S. Patent No. 6,950,825. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Barto. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 is affirmed.4 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 4 We note claims 12-16 recite a computer usable storage medium. However, Appellants’ Specification does not define computer usable storage medium to exclude transitory media. Consequently, the claimed storage medium encompasses transitory media, which is not patent eligible. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential). In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider rejecting claims 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.