Ex Parte Ramamoorthy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2012

10423539 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SUNDARESAN RAMAMOORTHY
____________

Appeal 2010-005121
Application 10/423,539
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR and TREVOR M.
JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005121
Application 10/423,539

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to policy management of information
management systems (see Spec. 4:12-17). Independent claims 1 and 15,
which are illustrative of the invention, read as follows:
1. A method of implementing a policy of an information
technology system comprising:
forming a requestor group comprising a plurality of requestors
with equal privileges under said policy;
grouping a plurality of resources to be accessed by said
requestor group subject to said policy to form a resource group; and
implementing said policy as said requestor group acting upon
said resource group,
wherein said policy comprises an access policy requiring a pre-
defined mapping of network elements.
15. A computer-usable medium having computer-readable program
code embodied therein for causing a computer system to perform a
method, said method comprising:
accessing a policy of an information technology system,
wherein said policy comprises a substantially natural language
statement, wherein said policy comprises an access policy requiring a
pre-defined mapping of network elements;
Appeal 2010-005121
Application 10/423,539

3
expanding said natural language statement to form a requestor
group comprising a plurality of requestors with equal privileges under
said policy;
identifying a resource group in said natural language statement,
said resource group comprising a plurality of resources to be accessed
by said requestor group subject to said policy; and
implementing said policy as said requestor group acting upon
said resource group.
Prior Art

Cain US 5,778,174 Jul. 7, 1998

Microsoft Press, Microsoft Windows NT Workstation Resource
Kit, 1996, pp. 171-183 (“Microsoft”)

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cain in view of Microsoft. Ans. 3.
Appellant’s Contentions1
1. Appellant contends that Microsoft does not teach or suggest
“grouping a plurality of resources to be accessed by said requestor
group subject to said policy to form a resource group,” as recited in
independent claim 1. App. Br. 9-10. In particular, Appellant argues that
Microsoft relates to “functions associated with the operation of a single
computer system, e.g., a workstation, operating the Microsoft Windows NT
operating system.” Id. (Emphasis added). Appellant further contends that

1 Claim 15 recites limitations similar to claim 1. App. Br. 11, 12. Separate
patentability is not argued for claims 2-14, and 16-20. App. Br. 13. Except
for our ultimate decision, claims 2-14, and 16-20 are not discussed further
herein.
Appeal 2010-005121
Application 10/423,539

4
Microsoft’s teaching of operating a single computer system by users in
different groups, teaches away from the claimed invention. (App. Br. 10-11;
Reply Br. 2-3).
2. Appellant contends that Cain does not teach or suggest “a pre-
defined mapping of network elements” as recited in independent claim 1
because the list in Cain “is not equivalent” to the claimed “pre-defined
mapping of network elements.” (App. Br. 11-12).
3. Lastly, Appellant contends that Microsoft does not teach or
suggest “wherein said policy comprises a substantially natural language
statement,” as recited in independent claim 15. (App. Br. 12-13).

Issue on Appeal
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over
Microsoft and Cain because the combination of references does not teach or
suggest the disputed features recited in independent claims 1 and 15?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-6). However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claims 1 and 15 for emphasis as follows.
With respect to the above contention 1, the Examiner responds that in
Microsoft, all files with a specific access level are grouped as administrator
Appeal 2010-005121
Application 10/423,539

5
resources, and thus are accessible by only the administrator group. (Ans. 5).
In addition, the Examiner finds that a single computer may even be accessed
by multiple users at different times, and so the access to a resource group is
still controlled by the policy of a user group. (Id.) The Examiner further
asserts that Microsoft relates to a network and thus a single computer can be
used by multiple users with shared resources. (Id.). We agree with the
Examiner.
We also note that the access “Rights” described by Microsoft (pages
179-181), provide the grouping of a plurality of resources that are accessed
and the “Groups assigned this right by default” (page 179), which includes
administrators, backup operators, everyone, guests, power users, and users,
provide multiple users in different requestor groups. Thus, we find that
Microsoft teaches and suggest “grouping a plurality of resources to be
accessed by said requestor group subject to said policy to form a resource
group,” as recited in claim 1.
Next, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Microsoft
teaches away from the claimed invention because as indicated above, a
single computer can be used by multiple users. Further, Appellant does not
present sufficient evidence to show that Microsoft teaches away from the
features recited in claim 1 (and claim 15).
With respect to the above contention 2, Appellant does not
persuasively explain how Cain’s predetermined list of IP addresses for
network devices differs from the recited pre-defined mapping of network
elements. Thus, we concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that
Cain’s teaching to compare a computer IP address of the client to a
Appeal 2010-005121
Application 10/423,539

6
predetermined list of pre-approved IP addresses equates to the claimed “pre-
defined mapping of network elements.” (Ans. 3, 5-6) See also Col. ll. 10-13.
Regarding the above contention 3, Appellant did not explicitly define
the term “substantially natural language statement” in the Specification.
Also, Appellant does not point to anything in the claims or Specification or
present persuasive evidence or argument that precludes this interpretation.
See App. Br. 12-13, Reply Br. 2-3.
Thus, the claims are given their broadest reasonable construction in
light of the disclosure. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing the claim terms broadly, the Examiner
(Ans. 6) finds (and we agree) that Microsoft’s policy as described in the
resource kit encompasses a “substantially natural language statement.”

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the disputed claim limitations, the Examiner has not
erred in rejecting claims 1 and 15, as well as claims 2-14, and 16-20 not
argued separately, as being obvious over Microsoft and Cain.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20 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

Appeal 2010-005121
Application 10/423,539

7
tj