Ex Parte Ezzat

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 9, 2010

10769594 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 9, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte AHMED K. EZZAT
____________________

Appeal 2009-005631
Application 10/769,594
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JAY P. LUCAS, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-005631
Application 10/769,594

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2008).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention is a system and method for
protecting information in a computer system (Br. 1). The invention seeks to
provide a flexible protection model by decoupling protection from privilege
(Abstract).

STATEMENT OF CASE
Exemplary Claim(s)
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method of providing flexible protection in a computer
system by decoupling protection from privilege, the method
comprising:

enabling receipt of information describing two or more
types of protection;

enabling receipt of information describing a relationship
between said two or more types of protection and portions of
code that are executed in a same privilege level of the computer
system, wherein said relationship is not required to be linear;
and

enabling the association of said information describing
said two or more types of protection and said information
describing said relationship with said portions of code, wherein
a first portion of code allowing a second portion of code to
access the first portion of code does not depend on the second
Appeal 2009-005631
Application 10/769,594

3
portion of code allowing the first portion of code to access the
second portion of code.
References
The references referred to by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gong US 6,125,447 Sep. 26, 2000
Allen Holub, Programming Java Threads in the Real World, Part 1,
http://www.Javaworld.com (Sept. 1, 1998).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Gong (Ans. 3).

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Appellant argues all of the independent claims 1, 10, 12, 15, and 17
as a group on the basis of claim 1 (Br. 12-16). We accept independent claim
1 as the representative claim. We will, therefore, treat independent claims
10, 12, 15, and 17 as standing or falling with representative claim 1.
We accept Appellant’s grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1, 10, 12, 15, and17
Appellant asserts their invention is not anticipated by Gong because
Gong does not teach, describe or suggest all of the elements of claims 1, 10,
Appeal 2009-005631
Application 10/769,594

4
12, 15, and 17 (App. Br. 12-16). Specifically, Appellant contend that Gong
does not disclose or suggest the steps of:
i) information describing a relationship between two or more types of
protection, wherein the relationship is not required to be linear;
ii) portions of code that are executed in a same privilege level of the
computer system; and
iii) wherein a first portion of code allowing a second portion of code
to access the first portion of code does not depend on the second
portion of code,
as similarly recited in claims 1, 10, 12, 15, and 17 (id.). Specifically,
Appellant contends Gong’s portions of code which are on a stack, depend on
each other for permission to access data (Br. 14). Appellant further asserts
the permission associated with objects b and c does not permit objects a’s
“required permission” to write to the file /tmp/temporary (Br. 16). As a
result, according to Appellant, Gong discloses the portion of code a depends
on portions of code b and c to access /tmp/temporary (id.).

The Examiner finds that Gong discloses an exemplary embodiment
having at least two distinct protection domains (domains I and J, see Figure
6; cf. col. 11, lines 55-64) (Ans. 7). Each of the protection domains has its
own set of permissions (id.). Therefore, the Examiner finds that Gong
discloses “enabling receipt of information describing two or more types of
protection” (id.). The Examiner further finds that Gong describes a domain
mapper component (element 248 of Figure 2) that receives the information
to combine permissions with a code identifier to which the permission is
Appeal 2009-005631
Application 10/769,594

5
applicable creating a protection domain object used by the system to
determine when a given portion of code may access a particular resource
(id.) The Examiner further finds the invention as recited does not forbid a
linear relationship (Ans. 8). The Examiner next finds that executing portions
of code in a same privilege level of the computer system is inherent (Ans. 8-
10).
Lastly the Examiner finds that since a.x invokes b.y, Gong discloses
that a.x must be able to access b.y for the invention to function (Ans. 10-11).
Additionally, the Examiner finds that the access by a.x of b.y is not
dependent on a.x allowing b.y to access it (id.).

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding that Gong discloses:
i) information describing a relationship between two or more
types of protection, wherein the relationship is not required to
be linear;
ii) portions of code that are executed in a same privilege level of
the computer system; and
iii) wherein a first portion of code allowing a second portion of
code to access the first portion of code does not depend on the
second portion of code allowing the first portion of code to
access the second portion of code?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s finding in the Answer of June 27, 2008
and emphasize the following. The claim recitation in claim 1 does not
Appeal 2009-005631
Application 10/769,594

6
require the relationship between the types of protection and the portions of
code to be linear, but it does not prohibit it either. Appellant’s arguments
regarding Gong’s portions of code on a stack depending on each other for
permission to access data is similarly unpersuasive. Claim 1 recites the first
portion of code’s allowing the second portion of code access to the first
portion of code is not dependent on the second portion’s allowing the first
portion access to the second portion. Appellant appears to be arguing
limitations not recited in the claim (Br. 14). Specifically, in Gong b.y
allowing a.x to access b.y does not depend on whether a.x allows b.y to
access a.x (Br. 14 and col. 11, ll. 40-54).
Additionally, the Examiner set out detailed findings as to Gong’s
disclosure of “information describing a relationship between said two or
more types of protection” and “portions of code … executed in a same
privilege level of the computer system” (Ans. 6-9). However, Appellant has
merely restated the claim limitation, restated the portion of Gong cited by
the Examiner, and stated this portion does not disclose the limitation (Br. 13
and 16). Appellant does not provide any persuasive arguments or evidence
that show the Examiner erred in finding Gong discloses this limitation.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding
that Gong discloses:
i) information describing a relationship between two or more
types of protection, wherein the relationship is not required to
be linear;
ii) portions of code that are executed in a same privilege level of
the computer system; and
Appeal 2009-005631
Application 10/769,594

7
iii) wherein a first portion of code allowing a second portion of
code to access the first portion of code does not depend on the
second portion of code allowing the first portion of code to
access the second portion of code.
Therefore, Appellant has failed to persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s finding that claim 1 is anticipated by Gong. Since Appellant
presented no additional arguments or evidence for claims 2-25, instead
relying on the arguments set forth for claim 1, Appellant has not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner’s finding that claims 2-25 are anticipated by
Gong.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Gong 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)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED
erc
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528