Ex Parte Smid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2017

13739234 (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.
13/739,234 01/11/2013 Maschhur Smid 000005-030200US 8215
58735 7590 11/27/2017
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
AGHARAHIMI, FARHAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASCHHUR SMID and JOACHIM BURGERT
Appeal 2017-006156
Application 13/739,234
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
databases. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal 2017-006156
Application 13/739,234
1. A method comprising:
replicating data from a first database system to a
second database system, wherein the first database
system includes a first authorization concept relating to
keys and key-related authorization values different from
a second authorization concept related to groups of users
of the second database system to restrict access to data in
the respective first database system and the second
database system;
determining a modeling of a first access context for a
first table in the replicated data based on the first
authorization concept, the modeling based on a key to a
second table of the first database system and a key-related
authorization value in a field in the second table of the
first database system;
generating an ACL rule based on the first access
context to restrict access to the replicated data in the
second database system to users associated with the first
access context, the first access context associated with a
hierarchy of groups in an entity and the ACL rule
adhering to the second authorization concept while being
equivalent to the first authorization concept;
receiving a request to access the replicated data from a
user;
determining a second access context for the user, the
second access context associated with a role of the user in
the entity;
comparing the first access context for the ACL rule and
the second access context for the user to determine
whether the user is allowed to access the replicated data;
and
allowing access to the replicated data when the second
access context and the first access context indicate the
user is allowed to access the replicated data.
2
Appeal 2017-006156
Application 13/739,234
References and Rejections
Claims 1—7, 10-16, and 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beatty (US 2010/0082552 Al, pub.
April 1, 2010), Idicula (US 2009/0144804 Al, pub. June 4, 2009), and Sun
(US 2009/008986 Al, pub. April 2, 2009).
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beatty, Idicula, Sun, and Bendakovsky (US
2011/0035359 Al, pub. February 10, 2011).
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beatty, Idicula, Sun, and Ma (US 2013/0185280 Al, pub.
July 18,2013).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Beatty,
Idicula, and Sun teach “the modeling based on a key to a second table of the
first database system and a key-related authorization value in a field in the
second table of the first database system,” as recited in independent claim
l.1 See App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2.
Acknowledging “Beatty in view of Idicula does not disclose” the
disputed limitation, the Examiner cites Sun’s paragraph 16 for teaching the
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal 2017-006156
Application 13/739,234
disputed limitation. Final Act. 5; see also the Examiner’s Second Answer,
dated February 9, 2017 (“Ans.”) 4—5.
We have reviewed Sun’s paragraph 16, and it does not describe “the
modeling based on a key to a second table of the first database system and a
key-related authorization value in a field in the second table of the first
database system.” Further, the Examiner’s assertion that “[t]he use of an ID
as a key to a table is well known in the art” (Ans. 4) is insufficient, as the
Examiner does not explain how that assertion and Sun’s paragraph 16
collectively teach “the modeling based on a key to a second table of the first
database system and a key-related authorization value in a field in the
second table of the first database system,” as required by the claim
(emphases added). See Reply Br 2.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 10 and 19 recites a claim limitation that
is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 10
and 19. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 10 and 19.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2—9, 11—18, and 20. Although the Examiner cites additional
references for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not
shown the additional references overcome the deficiency discussed above
regarding the rejection of claim 1.
4
Appeal 2017-006156
Application 13/739,234
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
REVERSED
5