Ex Parte KORKUS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

12861967 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/861,967 08/24/2010
26530 7590 09/27/2018
LADAS & PARRY LLP
224 SOUTH MICHIGAN A VENUE
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60604
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
OhadKORKUS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CU-8557 3086
EXAMINER
WOLDEMARIAM, NEGA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ChicagoUSPTO@ladas.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OHAD KORKUS, Y AKOV F AITELSON,
OPHIR KRETZER-KATZIR, and DAVID BASS
Appeal2018-000514 1
Application 12/861,9672
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-17. Claims 8-10 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June
13, 2017) and Specification ("Spec.," filed Aug. 24, 2010), as well as the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 21, 2017) and the Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 13, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Varonis Systems, Inc.
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000514
Application 12/861,967
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates to data management systems
and methodologies generally and more particularly to data access permission
management systems and methodologies." Spec. ,r 8. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A network object access permission management system
useful with a computer network including at least one server
and a multiplicity of clients, the system comprising:
an access permissions subsystem which governs access
permissions of users to network objects in said computer
network in real time; and
a future condition based permissions instruction
subsystem providing current instructions to said access
permission subsystem to grant or revoke access permissions of
said users to network objects in the future in response to
fulfillment of at least one future condition, said at least one
future condition being currently established by an operator in
advance of the possible occurrence of said at least one future
condition, said fulfillment of said at least one future condition
being evaluated in said future, and based on:
changes in at least one characteristic of said
network object indicated in advance by said operator;
actual future activity of at least one user related to
said network object as indicated in advance by said
operator; and
changes in at least one classification of said
network object indicated in advance by said operator.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Botz et al. (US
2008/0172720 Al; published July 17, 2008) (hereinafter "Botz") and Amies
et al. (US 2009/0150981 Al; published June 11, 2009) (hereinafter
"Amies"). Final Act. 3-13.
2
Appeal2018-000514
Application 12/861,967
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions for the reasons discussed below.
(1) Actual Future Activity o(a User
Appellants argue that the combination of Botz and Amies fails to
teach or suggest "providing current instructions ... to grant or revoke access
permissions ... in the future in response to ... actual future activity of at
least one user related to [a] network object as indicated in advance by [an]
operator," as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Br. 5-7. More
specifically, Appellants argue:
Amies does not show or suggest granting or revoking access
permission of a user to a network object based on actual future
activity by that user. Rather, Amies describes employing a
user access profile which defines attributes specific to a
particular access entitlement. In the prior art of Amies, access
entitlement merely grants the user an option to access network
objects and does not constitute actual activity on the part of
the user.
Id. at 6 ( citing Amies ,r 62).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Botz and Amies, and Botz
in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 2--4.
More specifically, the Examiner finds that Botz teaches "the role-based (i.e.
actual present/future activity by the user) access control module used to
grant or deny/revoke access to a particular system file/object proposed as
potential access permissions that may be used in the future." Ans. 2 ( citing
Botz ,r,r 22-23, Fig. 5). The Examiner finds Botz also teaches "specify[ing]
access permissions that are not currently used[, and that] ... such access
3
Appeal2018-000514
Application 12/861,967
permissions are proposed as potential access permissions that may be used in
the future to authorize a user's access to a computer resource ... based on
actual future activity by the user." Id. at 2-3 (citing Botz ,r 46).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
errs. Appellants do not address the Examiner's findings that Botz teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. We agree with the Examiner that Botz
teaches providing current instructions (proposed alternative access
permissions as implemented on a control list) to grant or revoke access
permissions in the future ("specify access permissions that are not currently
used to authorize a user's access to a computer resource, rather such access
permissions are proposed as potential access permissions that may be used
in the future to authorize a user's access to a computer") in response to
actual future activity of a user related to a network object (e.g., starting in a
role that has access to particular system functions) as indicated in advance
by an operator ( a system administrator assigns permissions to roles in
advance). See, e.g., Botz ,r,r 22-23, 46, Fig. 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11, as well as claims 2---6 and 12-1 7, which depend from
claims 1 and 1, respectively, as Appellants do not provide separate
arguments for their patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 11-17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4