10815213 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2013)

Ex Parte Duggan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 2013

10815213 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MATTHEW PAUL DUGGAN, DOLAPO MARTIN FALOLA, AND PATRICK RYAN WARDROP ____________ Appeal 2010-011282 Application 10/815,213 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6, 10-15, 19-24, and 27, which are all the claims remaining in the application. The rejections of claims 7-9, 16-18, 25, 26, and 28 have been withdrawn by the Examiner and therefore not before us. (Ans. 3.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-011282 Application 10/815,213 2 Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to “data processing, or, more specifically, methods, systems, and products for cross domain security information conversion.” (Spec. 1, ll. 14-15.)1 Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method for cross domain security information conversion, the method comprising: receiving from a system entity, in a security service; security information in a native format of a first security domain regarding a system entity having an identity in at least one security domain; translating the security information to a canonical format for security information; transforming the security information in the canonical format using a predefined mapping from the first security domain to a second security domain; translating the transformed security information in the canonical format to a native format of the second security domain; and returning to the system entity the security information in the native format of the second security domain. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1-6, 10-15, 19-24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dunn (U.S. Patent No. 7,428,750 1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed Mar. 5, 2010. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 20, 2010. Appeal 2010-011282 Application 10/815,213 3 B1, issued Sept. 23, 2008 (filed Mar. 24, 2003)) and Bussler (U.S. Patent No. 7,072,898 B2, issued July 4, 2006 (filed May 19, 2003)). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’ contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, we have determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Dunn and Bussler collectively would have taught or suggested “transforming the security information in the canonical format using a predefined mapping from the first security domain to a second security domain” (emphasis added), within the meaning of independent claim 1 and the commensurate limitations recited in independent claims 10 and 19? ANALYSIS Appellants contend, inter alia, that neither Dunn nor Bussler teaches nor suggests a predefined mapping from a first security domain to a second security domain. (Br. 10.) We agree for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants. (Id.) The Examiner relied on Bussler to teach or suggest the limitation at issue. (Ans. 5.) However, we find that the portions of Bussler cited by the Examiner (Ans. 6; Bussler, col. 6, ll. 1-34, 38-60; col. 6, l. 64 - col. 7, l. 20) do not discuss a predefined mapping from a first security domain to a second Appeal 2010-011282 Application 10/815,213 4 security domain, nor has the Examiner shown how this feature would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention.2 While Appellants admit that the cited references (namely Bussler), teach a transformation of data from a source application format to a target application format (Br. 10), we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown where the cited references make any such transformation using a predefined mapping, as claimed. Independent claims 10 and 19 recite commensurate limitations. Based on this record, Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 19. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 and dependent claims 2-6, 11-15, 20-24, and 27 which depend on and stand with their respective base claims. CONCLUSION OF LAW Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1- 6, 10-15, 19-24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 10-15, 19-24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED llw 2 Under § 103, all claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974).