Ex Parte Smith et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 16, 2010

10253829 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HUBBERT SMITH, ANURAG GUPTA, and KEITH L. YEDLIN
____________
Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,8291
Technology Center 2100
____________
Decided: April 16, 2010
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on September 23, 2002. The real party in interest is Intel Corp.
(App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of 31 through 51. (App. Br. 3.) Claims 1 through
30 have been cancelled. (Claims App’x.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and apparatus for controlling data
access. (Spec. 1, l. 3.) According to Appellants, the claimed invention
utilizes a portion of the processing resources of a server to examine shared
access privileges, manages information stored in the database storage, and
determines therefrom whether to grant permission to client computers
requesting access to such information. (Id. at ll. 17-20.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 31 further illustrates the invention as follows:
31. A method for data access control in a routable network
environment comprising:
receiving a message from a client node at an access
management node, the message containing a request that the client
node be granted access to data accessible by a server node;
determining by the access management node, in response to the
message, whether to grant the requested access; and
if the requested access is granted:
transmitting an access grant message from the access
management node to the server node notifying the server node
that the client node has been granted access to the data,
responsive to receipt of the access grant message by the
server node, the server node allowing the client node to access
the data via a network route that bypasses the access
management node; and
Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

3
modifying access control data accessible to the access
management node to indicate that the requested access has been
granted to the client node;
wherein the network route that bypasses the access management node
communicably couples a first portion of the network that includes the
client node with a second portion of the network that includes the
server node.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Fisher 6,085,191 Jul. 4, 2000
Shun Chan 6,697,901 B1 Feb. 24, 2004
(filed Oct. 24, 2000)
Vahalia 6,973,455 B1 Dec. 6, 2005
(filed Mar. 3, 1999)

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 31 through 36, 38 through 43, and 45 through 50 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Fisher and Vahalia.
Claims 37, 44, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Fisher, Vahalia, and Shun Chan.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Fisher’s disclosure of forwarding an access
request to a server does not amount to notifying the server that a client has
been granted access to data. Therefore, Appellants submit that Fisher does
not teach “transmitting an access grant message from the access
management node to the server node notifying the server node that the client
Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

4
node has been granted access to the data,” as recited in independent claim
31. (App. Br. 6-7.) Appellants also contend that Fisher’s disclosure of
requesting data only accessible by auxiliary servers does not correlate with
the Examiner’s position in the Examiner’s Answer that the corresponding
data is also accessible by the log server. (Reply Br. 2-3.) Further,
Appellants argue that Fisher’s disclosure of notifying a server that a client
has been granted access to data depends on the server relying on information
or mechanisms other than the “access grant message,” as claimed. (App. Br.
7-8.) In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner unreasonably
interprets the claimed “access grant message” as reading on Fisher’s
disclosure of an access request. (Id. at 8.) Additionally, Appellants allege
that the combination of Fisher and Vahalia is impermissible because
Vahalia’s disclosure of accessing data via a bypass route would render
Fisher’s management information server (“MIS”) inoperable for its intended
purpose. (Id. at 8-9.)
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Fisher’s disclosure of a MIS sending Event
Notification Messages to the log server (290) indicating that a user has been
granted access to tables or objects teaches “transmitting an access grant
message from the access management node to the server node notifying the
server node that the client node has been granted access to the data,” as
recited in independent claim 31. (Ans. 10-11.) In particular, the Examiner
finds that Fisher’s disclosure of Event Notification Messages, which include
access grant event notifications corresponding to access rights, teaches an
“access grant message,” as claimed. (Id. at 12.) Further, the Examiner finds
Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

5
that the combination of Fisher and Vahalia is permissible because there is
sufficient rationale for the proffered combination. (Id. at 13-15.)

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Fisher and Vahalia renders independent claim 31
unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether:
(a) the proffered combination teaches “transmitting an access grant
message from the access management node to the server node notifying the
server node that the client node has been granted access to the data,” as
recited in independent claim 31; and
(b) Vahalia’s disclosure would render Fisher inoperable for its
intended purpose.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (“FF”) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Fisher
1. Fisher generally relates to the managing computer networks
and, in particular, to “a system and method for limiting access to managed
objects and event notifications to authorized users of the managed objects
while also providing [structured query language] SQL access to at least a
portion of the management information in the network with matching access
restrictions.” (Col. 1, ll. 7-13.)
2. Fisher’s Figure 3 depicts “[a] management information server
(MIS) 150 [that] receives all object access requests 120, and distributes each
Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

6
request, or portions of the request, to a set of auxiliary servers 152 in
accordance with the portion(s) of the managed object tree referenced by the
request.” (Col. 6, ll. 47-51.)
3. Fisher’s Figure 9 depicts that the primary components of the
direct information access mechanism are a log server (290) and a
conventional database management system (“DBMS”) (280), including
event logs (282) and an access privileges module (284). (Col. 16, ll. 16-23,
28-30.) Each event log (282) consists of one or more database tables that
store different types of event notification. (Id. at ll. 25-27.) The access
privileges module (284) is capable of storing access privileged information
with each database table. (Id. at ll. 34-36.)
4. Fisher discloses that the log server 290 is either a software
entity or process that runs on the same computer or node as the MIS 150.
(Id. at ll. 48-50.) The log server (290) contains a set of filters, including a
first filter (291), or security audit trail filter, which “passes ‘access grant’
and ‘access denial’ event notifications generated by the MIS 150 and
auxiliary servers 152.” (Id. at ll. 50-55.)
5. Fisher discloses that only the log server (290) has write access
to the event log tables. (Id. at ll. 39-42.)
6. Additionally, Fisher discloses that specified users have read
access to specific tables stored in the DBMS. (Id. at ll. 24-25, 39-42.)
Fisher discloses that a standard SQL engine (286) processes read requests
from user processes or workstations (300) that are submitted via a user
communication interface (288). (Id. at ll. 42-45.)

Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

7
Vahalia
7. Vahalia generally relates to data storage systems and, in
particular, to network file servers. (Col. 1, ll. 8-10.) Vahalia’s Figure 3
depicts that each client (64, 65) can bypass the data mover (61) via data
paths (66, 67) when reading data from and writing data to the file system
(62). (Col. 8, ll. 61-64.)

IV. PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Claim Construction
“[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). “[T]he ordinary and customary
meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person
of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of
the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313.
“[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’”
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989)). Our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the
claims to specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1323.

Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

8
Obviousness
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under
§ 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(citation omitted).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art,” and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to
be obvious. Id. at 415 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12
(1966)). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.
The operative question in this “functional approach” is thus “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” Id. at 415, 417.

V. ANALYSIS
Claim 31
Independent claim 31 recites, in relevant part, “transmitting an access
grant message from the access management node to the server node
Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

9
notifying the server node that the client node has been granted access to the
data.”
We first consider the scope and meaning of the term “access grant
message,” which must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, as explained in In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant's specification.
Id. at 1054. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321 (stating that “claims must
be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”). Appellants’
Specification states the following:
[a]ccess grant message 310 may comprise and/or specify a token that
may specify and/or indicate one or more values that may specify
and/or identify, e.g., portion 160, the types of access and access lock
granted with respect to portion 160 as a result of operation 506, client
node 130B, server node 140B, and times of grant and expiration (if
any) of the access and access lock.

(Spec. 13, ll. 4-8.)
Our reviewing court further states, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim
term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1321.
Upon reviewing Appellants’ Specification, we find that the claim term
“access grant message” may be broadly, but reasonably construed as a
message that notifies another party that a requestor has been granted access.
Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

10
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section, Fisher discloses accessing
objects in a computer network based on access restrictions, whereby event
notifications inform authorized users of their corresponding level of access.
(FF 1.) In particular, Fisher discloses a MIS that receives an access request
and, based on an object referenced in the request, distributes the request to
the appropriate auxiliary server. (FF 2.) Fisher also discloses accessing
privileged information from a DBMS utilizing a log server, whereby the log
server may be a separate software entity. (FF 3-4.) In particular, the log
server invokes a set of filters, including a security audit trail filter that passes
“access grant” and “access denial” event notifications generated by the MIS
and auxiliary servers. (FF 4.)
We find that Fisher’s disclosure teaches a MIS and corresponding
auxiliary servers that generate event notifications pertaining to accessing
objects in a computer network, whereby the MIS works in conjunction with
the log server to filter and pass access grant and access denial notifications.
In particular, we find that Fisher’s disclosure of an access grant notification
amounts to a notification that a user has been granted access to an object.
Therefore, consistent with the definition above, Fisher’s access grant
notifications provides notice that a user has been granted access.
In summary, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
understand that Fisher’s MIS possesses sufficient functionality to transmit
access grant notifications to the log server, whereby the access grant
notification provides notice that a user has been granted access to an object
in a computer network. Thus, we find that Fisher teaches “transmitting an
access grant message from the access management node to the server node
Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

11
notifying the server node that the client node has been granted access to the
data,” as recited in independent claim 31.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Fisher’s
disclosure of requesting data only accessible by the auxiliary servers does
not correlate with the Examiner’s position in the Examiner’s Answer that the
corresponding data is also accessible by the log server. (Reply Br. 2-3.) As
detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Fisher discloses that the
DBMS stores event logs consisting of one or more database tables that store
different types of event notification. (FF 3.) In particular, Fisher discloses
that only the log server has write access to the event log tables. (FF 5.) We
find that Fisher’s disclosure teaches that the event log tables stored in the
DBMS are accessible via the log server, whereby the log server has the
ability to view or make changes to the different types of event notifications
stored in each event log. In particular, we find that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would appreciate that a user could request access to the event log
tables stored in Fisher’s DBMS by sending a request to Fisher’s MIS, which
works in conjunction with the log server to grant the user access to the
requested information.
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
combination of Fisher and Vahalia would be impermissible because
Vahalia’s disclosure of accessing data via a bypass route would render
Fisher’s MIS inoperable for its intended purpose. (App. Br. 8-9.) As
detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Fisher discloses that certain
users have read access to specific event log tables stored in the DBMS. (FF
6.) Additionally, Fisher discloses that a user directly communicates with the
DBMS by submitting a read access request via a workstation. (Id.) We find
Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

12
that Fisher’s disclosure teaches that a user may utilize a workstation to view
specific event log tables stored in the DBMS. In particular, we find that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that when a user accesses and
views specific event log tables stored in the DBMS via a workstation, the
user effectively bypasses the MIS.
Further, Vahalia discloses that a client can bypass the data mover in
order to read and write data to a file system. (FF 7.) We find that Vahalia
teaches that a client is capable of viewing and making changes to data
utilizing a route that bypasses the data mover. Thus, we conclude that
Vahalia’s disclosure of accessing data via a bypass route does not
undesirably encumber the controlling functionality of Fisher’s MIS nor does
it fundamentally change Fisher’s disclosure that a user can effectively
bypass the MIS in order to access and view specific event log tables stored
in the DBMS.
Claims 32 through 51
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for patentability with
respect to independent claims 38 and 45, and dependent claims 32 through
37, 39 through 44, and 46 through 51. Therefore, we select independent
claim 31 as representative of the cited claims. Consequently, Appellants
have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 38
and 45, and dependent claims 32 through 37, 39 through 44, and 46 through
51, for the reasons set forth in our discussion of independent claim 31. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009).

Appeal 2009-001353
Application 10/253,829

13
VI. CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
31 through 51 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31 through 51.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

Vsh

BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040