Ex Parte Nelson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10982376 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KENNETH CARLIN NELSON and MARILENE A. NORANHA
____________________

Appeal 2010-010824
Application 10/982,376
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010824
Application 10/982,376

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 2, 4, 25, 26, and 35-48. Claims 1, 3, 5-24, and 27-34 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates generally to securing access to resources
stored in a database system (Spec. 1, ¶ [0001]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 35 is exemplary:
35. A computer-implemented method for managing access control lists
(ACLs), comprising configuring one or more computer processors to
perform an operation comprising:

receiving an input from a first user for creating an ACL for a
first resource;

creating the ACL for the first resource, wherein the first user is an
owner of the ACL, and wherein the ACL defines access rights for the first
resource;

receiving a request from the first user to grant a second user a set of
privileges to the ACL, wherein the set of privileges to the ACL includes an
assignment privilege, wherein the assignment privilege allows the second
user to assign the ACL to a second resource, whereafter the ACL defines
access rights for both the first resource and the second resource; and

granting, by operation of the one or more computer processors, the
second user the set of privileges to the ACL, wherein the granted set of
privileges is represented by a data structure containing a reference to the
second user, a reference to the set of privileges, and a reference to the ACL.
Appeal 2010-010824
Application 10/982,376

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Brown US Pat. Pub. 2001/0047485 A1 Nov. 29, 2001
Van Dyke US 6,412,070 B1 June 25, 2002
Claims 2, 4, 25, 26, and 35-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Van Dyke in view of Brown.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
concluding that the combination of Van Dyke and Brown teaches or would
have suggested a “receiving a request from the first user to grant a second
user a set of privileges to the ACL” (claim 35).

III. FINDING OF FACT
The following Finding of Fact (FF) is shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Brown
1. Brown discloses a security system wherein rights are derived from
roles, and each user is assigned one or more roles (Abstract).
2. The roles that a member has been granted ultimately determine what
assets the member can access (p. 3, ¶ [0052]).
3. A domain/role may be granted ownership over a particular operation
on the access control list (ACL), wherein an owner of an ACL is allowed to
modify (p. 3, ¶ [0057]).
Appeal 2010-010824
Application 10/982,376

4
4. A member who possesses a domain/role principal combination may
grant the operation to the same role within a different domain (p. 3,
¶[0058]).
5. Authorization begins with sending a request to a resource manager (p.
3, ¶ [0069]).

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that “Brown fails to teach any assignment
privilege that allows a second user to assign the ACL to a second resource,
whereafter the ACL defines access rights to both the first resource and the
second resource” (App. Br. 12-13). In particular, Appellants contend that
“the read privilege and the write privilege (and the ownership thereof) of
Brown do not allow any user to assign the ACL to a different asset” (App.
Br. 13).
However, we give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 35 is a computer-implemented method that
comprises a step of “receiving a request from the first user to grant a second
user a set of privileges to the ACL”. In claim 35, the set of privileges
includes an assignment privilege “wherein” the assignment privilege allows
the second user to assign the ACL to a second resource. That is, claim 35
does not positively recite any assigning step, but instead the ability of the
second user to assign is provided in a “wherein” clause. Given the language
used, the “wherein” clause is reasonably interpreted to identify the resulting
ability to assign that occurs when a request is received to grant a second user
the privileges.
Appeal 2010-010824
Application 10/982,376

5
Thus, the “wherein” clause at issue is akin to a “whereby” clause that
merely states the result of the other features of the claim, such as the receipt
of the request to grant privileges. Our reviewing court has concluded that
“A ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the
claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas
Instruments, Inc. v. International Trade Comm., 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, we find Appellants’ principal argument urging
patentability is predicated on non-functional descriptive material (i.e., the
type or content of the data that is listed in an ACL). (App. Br. 12-13). That
is, the ACL is merely data, wherein the listing of the access rights to both the
first resource and the second resource in the ACL is merely the type/content
of the data listed thereon. The informational content of non-functional
descriptive material is not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis.
See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, at 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Lowry does not
claim merely the information content of a memory . . . . Nor does he seek to
patent the content of information resident in a database.”). See also Ex parte
Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte
Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Federal Circuit Appeal
No. 2006-1003, aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006)); Ex parte Mathias, 84
USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). Here, the informational content of the data that is listed in an
ACL is entitled to no weight in the patentability analysis.
Accordingly, claim 35 merely requires a method that comprises
“receiving a request from the first user to grant a second user a set of
privileges to the ACL”. In fact, claim 35 merely requires receiving data.
Appeal 2010-010824
Application 10/982,376

6
Brown discloses receiving a request (FF 5) wherein a domain/role
may be granted ownership over a particular operation on the ACL (FF 3) and
the member who possesses the domain/role principal may grant the
operation to the same role within a different domain (FF 4). That is, Brown
discloses receiving data, such as a request to grant a second user a set of
privileges to an ACL, as required by claim 35.
Furthermore, we note that Brown discloses that rights are derived
from roles, and each user is assigned one or more roles (FF 1), wherein the
roles that a member has been granted ultimately determine what assets the
member can access (FF 2) and the owner of the ACL is allowed to modify
(FF 3). That is, Brown discloses assigning privileges to ACLs, including
modifying the ACL, wherein the privileges include access to various
resources. Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that Brown
discloses “privileges [that] allows the domain/role combination to perform
an operation on the asset” and “a domain/role may be granted ownership
over a particular operation on the ACL” (Ans. 8, emphasis omitted). Thus,
even if we were to give the nonfunctional descriptive material in the
“wherein” clause patentable weight, we find no error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that Brown in combination with Van Dyke at the least suggests
assignment of a privilege that allows a second user to assign the ACL to a
second resource.
Although Appellants also contend that “the Examiner’s rationale for
the proposed modification/combination [of the prior art] is merely
conclusory” (App. Br. 13), we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that
“Van Dyke and Brown are analogous art because they are from the problem
solving area of assigning privileges of access control lists” (Ans. 5). We
Appeal 2010-010824
Application 10/982,376

7
also find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that “[w]hen combined
with the ability for separate domains to be treated together, with individual
security within a domain [as taught by Van Dyke and Brown, respectively],
a truly generic and flexible security system is provided” (Ans 10). That is,
we are of the view that the Examiner has provided “some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Thus, we find the Examiner’s articulated rationale to be sufficient to justify
the combination of record.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35
over Van Dyke and Brown. Further, claims 2, 4, 25, 26, and 36-48, which
have not been argued separately (App. Br. 11-13), fall with claim 35.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 25, 26, and 35-48 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

tkl