Ex Parte Hay et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2012

09931657 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ANDREW CHARLES HAY and SIANI LYNNE PEARSON
_____________

Appeal 2009-012317
Application 09/931,657
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final
rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, system, and apparatus for
monitoring interactions of components of a computer system and the ability
Appeal 2009-012317
Application 09/931,657

2
to modify security settings associated therewith. See Spec. 3-7. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. Security apparatus comprising:
means for representing to a user a plurality of components of
a computer platform;
means for representing to the user interactions among the
plurality of components; and
means for allowing the user to modify a security setting
associated with at least one of the plurality of components.

REFERENCES
Calamera US 5,966,441 Oct. 12, 1999

Saunders US 6,209,099 B1 Mar. 27, 2001

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Calamera in view of Saunders. Ans. 3-5.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Calamera and Saunders teach or
suggest representing interactions among the plurality of components to the
user?1
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “means for representing to the user interactions among
the plurality of components.” Independent claims 6, 10, and 14 contain
similar limitations. Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-17 depend upon claims

1 Appellants make additional arguments with respect to claims 1-17. App.
Br. 3-9. However, we do not reach these additional arguments as this issue
is dispositive of claims 1-17.
Appeal 2009-012317
Application 09/931,657

3
1, 6, 10, and 14 (respectively). Appellants argue that there is nothing in
either Calamera or Saunders that teaches or suggests this limitation because
there is nothing that shows interactions between the components. App. Br.
5-6. Appellants submit that Calamera only discloses interactions between
network components and software routines but does not teach representing
interactions between the plurality of components to the user. App. Br. 5. In
response, the Examiner cites to Figure 2 of Calamera which the Examiner
stated shows clients, servers, and a network-oriented component layer that
contains references to resources located on computer networks. Ans. 6-7.
We disagree.
Figure 2 of Calamera only shows a computer connected to various
peripheral devices, i.e., display, mouse, keyboard, and a computer network.
This figure is simply used to describe the invention disclosed by the
reference and is not displayed to the user. See Calamera, col. 6, ll. 19-44.
Additionally, the Examiner has not shown and we do not find that Saunders
cures the deficiencies of Calamera.
For the reasons stated supra, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-17.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Calamera and Saunders teach or
suggest representing interactions among the plurality of components to the
user.
In the event of further prosecution we leave to the instant Examiner to
determine the appropriateness of any further rejections of claims 1-5 and 10-
13, or similar claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, see, U.S. Patent & Trademark
Office, Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance
Appeal 2009-012317
Application 09/931,657

4
With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent
Applications, Part 1, § III.C.3, 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7168 (Feb. 9, 2011).

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-17 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc