Ex Parte Ratnala

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2016

12275232 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/275,232 11/21/2008 Kiran Kumar Satya Srinivasa Ratnala
56436 7590 06/27/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82238285 1707
EXAMINER
MARCUS, LELAND R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIRAN KUMAR SATYA SRINIVASA RATNALA
Appeal2013-002517 1
Application 12/275,2322
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134
and 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
May 30, 2012) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 4, 2012), and the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Apr. 16, 2012) and
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 9, 2012).
2 According to Appellant, the real parties in interest are Hewlett-Packard
Company and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2013-002517
Application 12/275,232
Introduction
Appellant's disclosure relates to a computer-implemented method, a
system, and non-transitory computer readable media for delegation of tasks
to users in large enterprises and/or large IT systems, i.e., to reduce the effort
required by security officers (Spec. 1 ).
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of registering a task in respect of a user in an
enterprise, the method comprising:
receiving a task registration request from the user by a
task registration logic residing in memory;
upon receiving the task registration request, determining
by a validation logic residing in the memory if the user would
conform to at least one of delegation and separation of duty
(SoD) policies if the user carried out the task;
determining whether quality of service (QoS) and trust
levels of the user would conform to minimum levels based on
the delegation and SoD policies, wherein the delegation and
SoD policies and QoS and tn1st levels are checked during
registering the task such that the user can only register to
perform the task if the user is authorized to carry out the task;
and
selectively registering the task in respect of the user
before that user carries out the task by the task registration logic
based on the delegation and SoD policies and QoS and trust
levels, wherein upon the successful registration, the task is
delegated to the user without intervention of security officers.
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellant appeals, the following
rejections:
2
Appeal2013-002517
Application 12/275,232
1. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Casati (US 2003/0149714 Al,
pub. Aug. 7, 2003), Szpak (US 2009/0007063 Al, pub. Jan. 1, 2009), and
Du (US 5,826,239, iss. Oct. 20, 1998).
2. Claims 2, 6, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Casati, Szpak, Du, and Official Notice.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 4, and 13-16
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that Casati fails to
disclose user registration, as recited in independent claim 1, i.e., "selectively
registering the task in respect of the user before that user carries out the task
by the task registration logic based on the delegation and SoD policies and
QoS and trust levels" (Appeal Br. 9-1 O; emphasis added). The Examiner
primarily relies on paragraph 25 of Szpak for this limitation (see Ans. 12).
Szpak describes an API (application programming interface) that allows a
user to register tasks to a workflow. However, we agree with Appellant that
the portion of Szpak relied on by the Examiner does not disclose either that
the task is registered "in respect of the user," or that the user performs the
task, both of which are required by the aforementioned limitation of
independent claim 1, i.e., Szpak's registration is of the task but not of the
user (see Reply Br. 7).
There is a sentence in the Background section of Szpak which states
that "[i]t would be desirable to provide a workflow management tool that ...
is able to reconfigure the graphical modeling environment in a manner
suitable for the particular workflow that is being executed by the model
designer" (Szpak i-f 4; emphasis added), but this statement is unclear, at best,
3
Appeal2013-002517
Application 12/275,232
as to who is performing the individual tasks, because it does not take into
account the delegation of tasks required by the claimed invention (see claim
1 ).
The Examiner does not rely on Casati or Du to remedy the argued
deficiency (see Ans. 12). Therefore, although the prior art relied on by the
Examiner discloses registration of tasks, it does not disclose that the tasks
are performed by the user, as required by independent claim 1.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1, and claims 3, 4, and 13-16,
which depend therefrom.
Independent claims 5, 9, and 17 and dependent claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 18,
and 19
Independent claims 5, 9, and 17 contain similar language and
requirements as independent claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 5, 9, and 17, and
claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 18, and 19, which respectively depend therefrom, for the
same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2, 6, and 10
Claims 2, 6, and 10 depend from independent claims 1, 5, and 9,
respectively, and stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Casati, Szpak, Du, further in view of Official Notice. The
Examiner does not provide additional evidence or reasoning to remedy the
deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, and 9 over the
combination of Casati, Szpak, and Du. We do not sustain the Examiner's
4
Appeal2013-002517
Application 12/275,232
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent claims 2, 6, and 10, for
similar reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
5