Ex Parte Harvey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2014

11270320 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte RICHARD H. HARVEY and DAMON N. GROENVELD1
__________

Appeal 2011-009970
Application 11/270,320
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and JEFFREY N.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
attribute defining method and a directory schema. The Examiner has
rejected the claims as anticipated or obvious. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Computer Associates Think,
Inc. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-009970
Application 11/270,320

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 117-154 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 5). Claim 117 is
representative and reads as follows:
117. A method of automatically defining attributes in a directory
schema during operation of the directory, the method comprising:
receiving at a directory an operation having an attribute not defined in
a directory schema;
determining, automatically by a computer, that the received attribute
is not defined in the schema and is to be defined in the schema; and
in response to determining that the received attribute is to be defined
in the schema, creating, automatically by the computer, a new attribute
definition for the received attribute.
Claims 117, 119, 121, and 149 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Kuechler2 (Ans. 4 & 12; see also App. Br. 11).
Claims 118, 122-130, and 150 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Kuechler in view of Sproule3 (Ans. 6 & 11; see also App.
Br. 11).
Claim 120 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Kuechler in view of Lloyd4 (Ans. 10).
Claims 131 and 132 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kuechler in view of Sproule and Borthakur5 (Ans. 10).
The Examiner states that claims 133-148 and 151-154 “are rejected
under the same rational as of claims 117-132” (Ans. 11). It is undisputed

2 David Kuechler et al., An Architecture to Support Communities of Interest
Using Directory Services Capabilities, PROC. 36TH HAW. INT’L CONF. SYS.
SCI. (2003).
3 Sproule, US 2004/0133876 A1, published Jul. 8, 2004.
4 Lloyd et al., US 2005/0102297 A1, published May 12, 2005.
5 Borthakur et al., US 2005/0114381 A1, published May 26, 2005.
Appeal 2011-009970
Application 11/270,320

3
that these claims stand rejected either under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kuechler or under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Kuechler in view of Sproule, Lloyd, and/or Borthakur (App. Br. 15).
I
The Examiner finds that Kuechler teaches all of the features of
representative claim 117 (Ans. 4-5).
Findings of Fact
1. Kuechler discloses:
Directory services . . . provid[e] a mechanism for the structured
description of a resource. While there are several approaches
for providing directory services, we focus on Lightweight
Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) . . . because it is an open
standard, widely supported, and clearly defines key directory
concepts. A directory consists of a set of entries, each of which
corresponds to a particular resource; each directory entry is
uniquely identified by a distinguished name, which can be
thought of as a primary key in relational database (RDBMS)
terminology. Each entry is then further described by a set of
attribute-value pairs; e.g., an individual might have an attribute
“email,” followed by the particular value “johndoe@some.org.”
(Kuechler 2, § 2.)
2. In particular, Kuechler discloses: “Metadata definition is
concerned with providing mechanisms to describe resources of a certain
type, rather than providing actual data to describe any particular objects. In
other words, it is concerned with attribute definitions and objectclass
definitions, rather than attribute-value pair specifications or new resource
descriptions.” (Id. at 6, § 4.2.1.)
Appeal 2011-009970
Application 11/270,320

4
3. Kuechler also discloses:
In this scenario, a user wishes to define a new attribute that can
be used to describe resources. . . . The user will first search the
existing attribute definitions to determine if an appropriate
attribute has already been defined and can be reused; this can be
done using either the LDAP client, or preferably, using the
Semantic Facilitator™ (SM). If the attribute has already been
defined then no further action need be taken; if not, the user
will be able to define a new attribute from scratch or by
selecting a closely matching attribute definition and modifying
it appropriately using the Metadata Updater. . . . Once an
attribute has been defined, it will be available for use to
describe any object in the COI [communities of interest] Server.
(Id. at 6, § 4.2.1 (Attribute Definition).)
4. In addition, Kuechler discloses:
To further evaluate this architecture, we are creating an initial
prototype using a single LDAP server. The COI Server thus
consists of a set of external processes that provide access to an
underlying LDAP Server. . . . This approach has enabled us to
provide standard LDAP access to COI information, and to take
advantage of the attribute-level and schema-level checking
provided by the LDAP server.
(Id. at 8, § 5.)
5. Kuechler also discloses:
Typically, in an LDAP Server, only an administrator has the
ability to define new attribute or objectclass definitions. This
architecture, however, extends these capabilities to ordinary
users. To accomplish this without compromising the integrity
of the system, a specialized process, the metadata updater,
provides a web-based interface that enables users to request the
definition of new metadata elements. A Common Gateway
Interface program verifies that the definition is feasible (i.e.,
correctly specified and not a duplicate), and makes the
appropriate LDAP calls to define the attribute or objectclass.
Appeal 2011-009970
Application 11/270,320

5
(Id. at 8, § 5.1.)
Analysis
Appellants argue that “Kuechler fails to disclose . . . determining,
automatically by a computer, that the received attribute [of the received
operation] is not defined in the schema and is to be defined in the schema”
(App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted)). Appellants also argue that “Kuechler fails
to disclose, . . . in response to determining that the received attribute [of the
received operation] is to be defined in the schema, creating, automatically
by the computer, a new attribute definition for the received attribute [of the
received operation]” (id. at 13-14). We are not persuaded.
Kuechler discloses that a “Common Gateway Interface program
verifies that the [attribute] definition is feasible (i.e., correctly specified and
not a duplicate), and makes the appropriate LDAP calls to define the
attribute” (Finding of Fact 5). Although the request is made by a user, we
agree with the Examiner that, once the request is made, the evidence
supports the Examiner’s position that (a) the determination that the received
attribute is not defined in the schema and is to be defined in the schema and
(b) the creation of the new attribute definition are done automatically by a
computer.
Conclusion
The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Kuechler
teaches the method of claim 117. We therefore affirm the anticipation
rejection of claim 117. Claims 119, 121, and 149 have not been argued
separately and therefore fall with claim 117. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-009970
Application 11/270,320

6
II
In rejecting claims 118, 120, 122-148, and 150-154, the Examiner
relies on Kuechler, alone or in combination with other references (Ans. 6-
11). Appellants traverse the rejections of these claims for “analogous
reasons as discussed above in reference to independent Claim 117” (App.
Br. 15). We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed
above. We therefore affirm the rejections of these claims for the reasons of
record.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

mls