Ex Parte Meiners et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2017

13624921 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/624,921 09/22/2012 John Meiners 4366YDT-157 7471
48500 7590
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
LIPMAN, JACOB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2017 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):
cjacquet@ sheridanross.com
pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com
edocket @ sheridanross .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN MEINERS, WILLIAM T. WALKER,
and KURT HASERODT
Appeal 2016-007698
Application 13/624,9211
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, AARON W. MOORE, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to “communication systems and methods.”
Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations
at issue emphasized:
1. A method, comprising:
placing an order for a service to a service warehouse in an
enterprise network, wherein the service is an application
accessed through, to be implemented in, and executed on the
enterprise network, wherein the service is a feature that is made
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-007698
Application 13/624,921
available to a user within a single enterprise or within multiple
enterprises;
before accessing the service, receiving an object, from an
object generator, that defines a first level of attribute permissions
associated with the service, the first level of attribute permissions
defining a first set of rules controlling use of the service;
defining a second level of attribute permissions associated
with the service, the second level of attribute permissions
defining a second set of rules controlling use of the service,
wherein the second set of rules are defined within the first set of
rules and do not extend beyond the first set of rules, and wherein
at least a first rule is included in the first set of rules that is not
included in the second set of rules; and
building a data structure that controls user access to the
service in accordance with both the first and second levels of
attribute permissions, wherein the first level of attribute
permissions correspond to permissions created by a provider of
the service, wherein the second level of attribute permissions
correspond to permissions created by an administrator of the
enterprise network.
Rejection
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Peddada et al. (US 2012/0066755 Al; Mar. 15, 2012). Final Act. 2.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Peddada discloses “the second set of
rules are defined within the first set of rules and do not extend beyond the
first set of rules,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1,11, and 20 recite a first and second set of rules
wherein “the second set of rules are defined within the first set of rules and
2
Appeal 2016-007698
Application 13/624,921
do not extend beyond the first set of rules.” According to Appellants, this
means “the second set of rules are a subset of the first set.” Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner finds Peddada discloses this limitation. Specifically,
the “additional privileges” granted by an administrator (0048)
. . . define the second set of rules. This granted access has access
limitations that would also be included in the original privilege
level. For example, the user still does not have full
administrative rights. This limitation is also included in the first
access level of read only.
Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 2.
However, we agree with Appellants that “[b]y definition, ‘additional
privileges’ are those privileges added to the privileges that already exist”
and “[n]o one skilled in the art could reasonably conclude that a superset of
privileges is the exact same as a subset of privileges.” Reply Br. 3^4; see
also App. Br. 16. Thus, regardless of whether both sets of rules contain
some common “access limitations” (e.g., not having “full administrative
rights”), the second set of rules having “additional privileges” means the
second set extends “beyond the first set of rules,” contrary to the claims.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1,11, and 20, and their dependent claims 2—10 and 12—
19. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—20.
REVERSED
3