Ex Parte Ng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2017

11728800 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 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.
11/728,800 03/26/2007 Raymond K. Ng OR06-06101-CIP 3242
51067 7590 11/27/2017
PVF - ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
EXAMINER
W OLDEMARIAM, NEGA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2017 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):
j eannie @parklegal. com
wendy@parklegal.com
sy_incoming @parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND K. NG
Appeal 2015-004685
Application 11/728,8001
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-25, which are all claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Oracle International
Corporation. Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-004685
Application 11/728,800
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellant's disclosed embodiments and claimed invention "relate[] to
computer security. More specifically, the present invention relates to a
method and apparatus for facilitating fine-grain permission management."
Spec. ^ 2.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphases added to contested limitations):
1. A method for facilitating fine-grain permission
management, the method comprising:
creating, by a computer, an object permission to manage
access to a resource, wherein the object permission is associated
with a first permission class in object-oriented programming,
and wherein the first permission class specifies one or more
methods for performing actions on the resource;
creating, by the computer, an admin permission to
manage access to the object permission, wherein the admin
permission determines which user is authorized to perform an
administrative action on the object permission, wherein the
admin permission is associated with a second permission class
in object-oriented programming, and wherein the second
permission class specifies one or more methods for performing
administrative actions on the object permission or an admin
permission;
2 Our decision relies upon Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
Nov. 3, 2014); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 16, 2015); Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 2, 2014); and the original
Specification ("Spec.," filed Mar. 26, 2007). We note Appellants did not file
a Reply Brief in response to the factual findings and legal conclusions in the
Examiner's Answer.
2
Appeal 2015-004685
Application 11/728,800
granting, by the computer, the admin permission to a
user; and
responsive to the user being granted the admin
permission, performing, by the computer, the administrative
action on the object permission on behalf of the user.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Gavrila et al. ("Gavrila") US 2002/0026592 A1 Feb. 28, 2002
Exton et al. ("Exton") US 2003/0041198 Al Feb. 27, 2003
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Exton and Gavrila. Final Act. 4;
Ans. 2, 16.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant's arguments (Br. 16-26), we decide the appeal of
the obviousness rejection of claims 1-25 on the basis of representative
claim l.3
3 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
3
Appeal 2015-004685
Application 11/728,800
ISSUE
Appellant argues (Br. 16-26) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Exton
and Gavrila is in error. These contentions present us with the following
issues:
(a) Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination
teaches or suggests "[a] method for facilitating fine-grain permission
management," that includes, inter alia, the steps of "creating ... an admin
permission . . . [that] determines which user is authorized to perform an
administrative action on the object permission," and "responsive to the user
being granted the admin permission, performing . . . the administrative
action on the object permission on behalf of the user," as recited in claim 1?
(b) Did the Examiner err in combining Exton and Gavrila in the
manner suggested because, allegedly, the proposed modification or
combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the
prior art invention being modified?
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. We do not consider arguments
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief, and we deem
any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant's arguments with respect to claims 1-25
and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein 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 and rebuttals set forth in
4
Appeal 2015-004685
Application 11/728,800
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's arguments. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis
as follows.
(a) All Limitations are Taught or Suggested
Appellant generally contends Exton and Gavrila are deficient in
teaching or suggesting the contested limitations identified, supra. Br. 19. In
particular, Appellant argues "the cited sections of Exton are merely
concerned with using [Access Control Lists] ACLs to restrict operations that
users can perform on a resource . . . [and] nothing in Exton describes that
'the object' corresponds to permission information for a resource." Br. 19-
20. Further, "[i]t is not possible to use the ACL described in Exton to grant
or deny a request to perform an administrative action on an object
permission for a resource, which is not the same as performing an
administrative action on the resource itself." Br. 20.
With respect to the teachings of Gavrila, Appellant alleges the
"abstract objects" in Gavrila "are merely concerned with attributes for data
objects, such as an object class or an object name . . . [and] do not include
any type of permission information." Br. 21. "Because these attributes do
not describe any type of permission information, the Gavrila system does not
use the abstract object as an 'object permission'. . . . [and njothing in Gavrila
discloses that these attributes include permission information." Br. 22.
Appellants also argue:
[T]he Gavrila system is merely concerned with using graph-
based role hierarchies to control access to a resource, using an
"abstract object" to define attributes that uniquely identify an
object, and using an "abstract permission" to control which
5
Appeal 2015-004685
Application 11/728,800
users can modify the abstract object. Paragraph [0026] of
Gavrila merely summarizes steps for managing role instances of
a role on a host computer or a set of host computers by
"automatic distribution of permissions on object instances to
role instances whenever new permission-inheritance relations
are established among roles . . . whenever new roles are added
to the directed acyclic graph . . . whenever a new role instance
is created for a role on a host computer or set of host computers
. . . whenever a new object instance is created for an abstract
object on a host computer or set of host computers . . .
whenever a new permission is granted to a role."
However, none of these steps involve using an "admin
permission" (as described in the claimed invention) to perform
an administrative action (of the admin permission) on the object
permission on behalf of the user. More specifically, "automatic
distribution of permissions on object instances to role
instances" as described in Gravila [sic] is not the same as:
1) "performing the administrative action on the object
permission" and [2)] performing this administration action "on
behalf of the user" as required by the claimed invention.
Br. 22-23 (emphases omitted).
As the predecessor to our reviewing court has held,
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
In response to Appellant's arguments against the references separately,
the Examiner finds Exton's disclosure in paragraph 29 of "administrative
operations associating each objects with a set of operations including
6
Appeal 2015-004685
Application 11/728,800
administrative operation that can be performed on the object) teaches the
recited claim limitation 'responsive to the user being granted the admin
permission, performing the administrative action on the object permission on
behalf of the user.'" Ans. 16.
The Examiner further finds Gavrila's paragraph 108 discloses
"permissions on objects of host systems indirectly, through the use of so-
called abstract objects and abstract permissions, assigned to roles. An
abstract object is an entity exposing a series of attributes, the object class
and object name being two of them. These two attributes uniquely identify
the abstract object." Paragraph 79 is cited as disclosing
updates of role-permission hierarchies include, but are not
restricted to, (1) changes of role-permission inheritance,
(2) creation and registration of new objects and assignment to
roles (i.e. including admin role), or object deletion and de-
registration, and (3) distribution and revocation of permissions
to roles (i.e. permission class performing actions on resources
and admin permission).
Ans. 16-17.
With respect to the specific "creating an admin permission" limitation,
the Examiner finds:
The permission to create abstract objects of a class is granted by
the class creator, which must itself have the permission to
create classes (i.e. administrative role determining which user is
authorized to perform an administrative action on the object
permission). This permission is obtained from the system
administrator)), teaching the recited claim limitation "creating
an admin permission to manage access to an object permission,
wherein the admin permission determines which user is
authorized to perform an administrative action on the object
permission))"
7
Appeal 2015-004685
Application 11/728,800
Ans. 17 (citing Gavrila 125) (emphasis added).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,4 we agree with
the Examiner's findings quoted above that the combination of Exton and
Gavrila teaches or suggests the contested limitations recited in claim 1. We
further note the Examiner's findings remain unrebutted, as Appellant did not
file a Reply Brief in response.
(b) The Combination of References is Proper under KSR
Similar to the arguments presented with respect to Issue (a), above,
Appellant contends:
[T]he Gavrila "abstract object" does not include any type of
permission information (and thus is not an "object
permission["]). Hence, the Gavrila "abstract permission" cannot
be used to control which users are authorized to perform an
administrative action on an object permission. Hence,
modifying the Gavrila system to use an "abstract permission" to
control access to any type of permission information would
require a modification to the Gavrila system that is beyond the
intended purpose of the Gavrila system.
Br. 24-25.
4 Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the
specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood
by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform
Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see
also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to
a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary
meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written
description.").
8
Appeal 2015-004685
Application 11/728,800
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred because
[the] Examiner's suggested modification to the Exton cited art
would change the principle of operation to the Exton cited art.
As stated above, the Exton cited art is merely directed to a
system that controls administrative actions to a resource
itself. [ ] The Exton system is not designed to control
administrative actions to an object permission for a resource.
When the Exton system is used as intended, the Exton system at
most uses an ACL to determine which users can perform an
administrative action on a resource, and not on the object
permission for the resource.
In fact, nothing in Exton allows an ACL to control
administrative actions on permissions information for an object.
Hence, modifying the Exton system to control administrative
actions on an object permission would require a modification to
the Exton system that is beyond its intended purpose.
Br. 25.
Contrary to Appellant's argument the combination would have
changed the references' principle of operation, it is well settled that "a
determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet,
686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for
obviousness whether a secondary reference's features can be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. See Keller, 642
F.2d at 425.
The Examiner's stated basis for motivation to combine the references
in the manner suggested is that
it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to modify the system of
authorization model for administration disclosed by Exton to
include the method for automatic permission management in
9
Appeal 2015-004685
Application 11/728,800
role-based access control systems, as thought by Gavrila, in
order to enable association of the object of permission with a
permission class, and the permission class facilitate performing
actions on the resource. One having ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to use object oriented permission
class in order to enable inheritance and automation.
Ans. 4-5.
We note the Examiner's finding of motivation is consistent with
current case law. For example, the Supreme Court guides:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace; and the
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this analysis
should be made explicit. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot
be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must
be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness"). As our
precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.
KSRInt'l Co, v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
In this case, the Examiner's conclusions of obviousness are clearly
articulated and based on detailed factual findings supported by the
references of record. See Final Act. 4-7; Ans. 2-5.
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
10
Appeal 2015-004685
Application 11/728,800
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do
we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, and grouped claims 2-25 which fall therewith. See Claim
Grouping, supra.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combination of
record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
11