Ex Parte Joshi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2012

09792915 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte VRINDA S. JOSHI and SRINIVASAGOPALAN
RAMAMURTHY
____________

Appeal 2009-015256
Application 09/792,915
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, LANCE LEONARD BARRY,
and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-015256
Application 09/792,915

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-20, and 22-38. Claims 7 and 21 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to logging access events and creating a
log entry where the information from an identity profile pertaining to a user
is stored (see Spec. ¶ [0021] – [0025]). Claims 1, 18, and 37 are illustrative
of the invention and read as follows:
1. A method for logging access system events,
comprising the steps of:
detecting an access system event;
creating a log entry for said access system event;
storing information from an identity profile in said log
entry, said identity profile pertains to a first user, said access
system event involves said first user; and
storing an identification of an access rule in said log
entry, said access rule is used during said access system event.

18. One or more processor readable storage devices
having processor readable code embodied on said processor
readable storage devices, said processor readable code for
programming one or more processors to perform a method
comprising the steps of:
receiving configuration information for a log entry, said
configuration information includes an identification of one or
more identity profile attributes to store in said log entry;
detecting an access system event;
creating said log entry for said access system event; and
Appeal 2009-015256
Application 09/792,915

3
storing information from an identity profile in said log
entry, said identity profile pertains to a first user, said access
system event involves said first user.

37. A method for logging access system events,
comprising the steps of:
receiving a default audit rule for a set of resources;
receiving a specific audit rule for a subset of said set of
resources;
receiving a request to access a first resource from said
first user;
detecting an access system event associated with said
request to access said first resource;
determining whether said first resource is in said subset
of said set of resources;
creating a log entry for said access system event
according to said default audit rule if said first resource is not in
said subset of said set of resources; and
creating said log entry for said access system event
according to said specific audit rule if said first resource is in
said subset of said set of resources.

The Rejections
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 14, 15, 26, 30, 31, and 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith (US 4,956,769). (See Ans.
4-7).
Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Valente (US 6,779,120 B1). (See Ans. 7-8).
Claims 11 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith and Byrne (US 6,347,312 B1). (See Ans. 8).
Claims 12 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith and Gleichauf (US 6,324,656 B1). (See Ans. 9).
Appeal 2009-015256
Application 09/792,915

4
Claim 13, 18, 22, 23, 29, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith and McFadden (US 6,741,992
B1). (See Ans. 9-10 and 11-13).
Claims 16, 17, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith and Brown (US 6,618,806 B1). (See Ans.
10-11).
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith, McFadden, and Byrne. (See Ans. 13-14).
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith, McFadden, and Gleichauf. (See Ans. 14-15).
Claims 24, 25, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith, McFadden, and Brown. (See Ans. 15-16).
Appellants’ Contentions
1. With respect to the rejection of claim 1 over Smith, Appellants
contend that Smith does not support a finding of anticipation because the
cited portions of the reference do not disclose the claimed “creating a log
entry for the access system event” (Br. 9-12). Appellants specifically argue
that the Input/Output operation table of Smith is not the audit log because it
includes entries based on the Input/Output operation itself, rather than from
the security tables (id.). Additionally, Appellants assert that the security
access table, user access table, or the terminal location security access tables
are not available as long-term log or used in the audit trail history because
they are not retained after the user exits (Br. 9-11). Appellants further
contend that Smith fails to disclose the claimed “storing information from an
identity profile in said log entry” and merely discusses profiles or access
tables with respect to a group of users (Br. 12-13) and security log violation
Appeal 2009-015256
Application 09/792,915

5
database (Br. 14). Finally, Appellants contend that Smith does not disclose
“storing an identification of an access rule in said log entry” and merely
provides one rule for comparing data elements and flagging them if they do
not match, which is not stored in any log entry (Br. 14-15).
2. With respect to the rejection of claim 37 over Valente,
Appellants contend that Valente discloses logging directives which specify
the severity of an event, rather than whether or how an event is logged or
audited (Br. 16-17). Appellants acknowledge the Examiner’s finding that
Valente discloses default and specific rules and assert that such rules are not
shown to be audit rules (Br. 17). Appellants further contend that Valente’s
disposition or logging directives are not based on any default audit rules and
in fact, refer to a directive to log all traffic (Br. 18-19).
3. With respect to the rejection of claims 18 and 35 over Smith
and McFadden, Appellants contend that, in addition to the arguments made
for claim 1 regarding the teachings of Smith, McFadden fails to teach or
suggest creating or configuring log entries for access system events (Br. 20-
21). Appellants conclude that the configuration profiles of McFadden are
for message recipients, and not for configuring a log entry for an access
system event (Br. 21).
4. With respect to the rejections of the remaining claims,
Appellants argue that the additionally applied references either do not teach
or suggest the limitations they are purported to teach, or fail to teach the
disputed features of their base claims (Br. 22-24).

Appeal 2009-015256
Application 09/792,915

6
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions and 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. However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 18, 35, and 37 for emphasis as
follows.
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection over Smith
With respect to Appellants’ first contention, we note that the
Examiner properly concluded that the audit trail, or the log entry, mentioned
in column 3, lines 52-57, of Smith includes detailed information about the
user identity and the nature of the user access based on the user profile or the
profile access rules (Ans. 16-17). The Examiner further provided sufficient
analysis and the corresponding findings in Smith for teaching the log entry,
storing information about an access rule and using the access rule during the
access system event (Ans. 17-22) which we adopt as our own. Contrary to
Appellants’ contention that none of the disclosed tables are available as
long-term log or used in the audit trail history (Br. 9-11), we agree with the
Examiner that the log entry or the audit trail of Smith meets the claim
language because the claims do not require long-term log (see Ans. 17-18).
As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 18), Smith specifically teaches that an audit
trail history is retained that permits the security personnel to examine the
unauthorized system logon and activities (see col. 6, ll. 49-54).
Appeal 2009-015256
Application 09/792,915

7
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection over Valente
Regarding Appellants’ second contention, we also find that the
Examiner properly relied on Table A and column 31, line 66 to column 32,
line 2, of Valente for discussing logging directives having fields for
identifying the severity of the policy violation, and on Table B for a list of
severity values (Ans. 22-23). Additionally, the Examiner explains that the
logging directives summarize the policy for access and therefore teach
creating a log entry for the access system event based on the default policy
rules in Table A (Ans. 23-24).
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection over Smith and McFadden
With respect to Appellants’ third contention, for the same reasons
stated above regarding the teachings of Smith, we agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combination of Smith and McFadden teaches or suggests
the subject matter of claims 18 and 35. We specifically agree with the
Examiner’s findings that McFadden’s Figure 1 shows identification
information for a log entry by determining which recipients should receive a
given message and creating a list of recipients (Ans. 25 (citing col. 7, ll. 42-
56)).
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection over Smith and Byrne, Gleichauf, or Brown
We again agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our
own and further find that the Examiner has identified in each reference the
relevant teachings that meet the disputed claimed limitations (see Ans. 22-
24). Regarding Appellants’ contentions challenging the propriety of the
rejection of claims 15-17 and 20 and whether the proposed combination
teaches or suggests all the claimed features, we find that the Examiner has
articulated how the claimed features are met by the reference teachings with
Appeal 2009-015256
Application 09/792,915

8
some rational underpinning to combine Byrne, Gleichauf, Brown, and
McFadden with Smith. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007).

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-10, 14, 15,
26, 30, 31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith.
2. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 37 and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Valente.
3. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 13, 18, 22, 23, 29,
and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith and
McFadden.
4. The Examiner did not err in rejecting the remaining claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in combination
with the other references.
5. Claims 1-6, 8-20, and 22-38 are not patentable.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-6, 8-20, and 22-38 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).

AFFIRMED

msc