Ex Parte Wefers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

11002809 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111002,809 12/03/2004
131475 7590 03/29/2016
Dilworth IP - SAP
2 Corporate Drive, Suite 206
Trumbull, CT 06611
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wolfgang Marcus W efers
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.
247-021US 9109
EXAMINER
DICKERSON, TIPHANY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOLFGANG MARCUS WEFERS
Appeal2014-001313
Application 11/002,809
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1---62 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-001313
Application 11/002,809
THE INVENTION
The Appellant's claimed invention is directed to systems and methods
for assigning task-oriented roles to users in organizations (Spec. para. 2).
Claim 1, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method for assigning task-
oriented roles to persons in an organization comprising the
steps, performed by a computer, of:
[ 1] generating a set of tasks for performance in an
organization having hierarchical levels;
[2] defining a set of roles for persons in the organization,
the set of roles including a first role at a first one of the levels
and a second role at a second one of the levels, and being
defined by assigning one or more tasks from the set of tasks to
corresponding roles from the set of roles, wherein the first level
corresponds to a higher hierarchical level of the organization
compared to the second organization level;
[3] defining a To-Do list including the one or more tasks
corresponding to the set of roles;
[ 4] performing a role assignment process by using a
processor of the computer, the process including:
[5] assigning, by one or more business users, persons to
the defined set of roles, wherein assigning comprises providing
user names for assigned persons, and assigning a first person to
the first role and a second person to the second role; and
[ 6] mapping, by a third person, existing user IDs to the
user names that do not have associated user IDs, wherein the
role assignment process is performed in a cascaded manner
along the hierarchical levels of the organization such that the
first person is assigned the first role by a first business user, and
the second person is assigned the second role by the first
person, after assignment of the first role authorizes the first
person to assign the second role to the second person;
2
Appeal2014-001313
Application 11/002,809
[7] introducing one or more constraints that prevent the
first person from making predetermined types of changes to
role assignments;
[8] providing the To-Do list to the first person;
[9] updating the To-Do list when the first person is
assigned the first role, the updated To-Do list indicating that the
first person is assigned the first role and including a user task
selected from the one or more tasks corresponding to the set of
roles;
[10] indicating a rating in the To-Do list based on an
assessment of a control associated with the first role, the rating
being selected from a plurality of ratings when the control is
assessed based on a predetermined level;
[12] identifying an issue associated with the control when
the rating indicates that the control is deficient;
[ 13] attempting to remediate the issue based on a
remediation plan; and
[ 14] updating the rating based on the attempt to
remediate the issue.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-54 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brandt (US 6,714,913 B2, iss. Mar. 30, 2004), Keinsley
(US 2003/0154403 Al, pub. Aug. 14, 2003), and Shea (US 2005/0197952
Al, pub. Sept. 8, 2005).
2. Claims 55---62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brandt, Keinsley, Shea, and Na (Na and Cheon, Role
1 The Final Rejection at page 3 only lists claims 1, 6-8, 11, 23, 28-30, 33,
45, and 50 under this rejection but the body of the rejection includes all
claims 1-54.
3
Appeal2014-001313
Application 11/002,809
Delegation in Role-Based Access Control, RBAC 2000 (2000)(hereinafter
"Na").
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to disclose elements of claim limitations [7], [ 1 OJ, and
[14] identified above (App. Br. 13-18, Reply Br. 2-7).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitations are shown by the cited prior art (Final Act. 3-7, Ans. 2--4).
We agree with the Examiner. Claim limitations [7], [10], and [14]
reqmre:
[7] introducing one or more constraints that prevent the first
person from making predetermined types of changes to role
assignments;
[10] indicating a rating in the To-Do list based on an
assessment of a control associated with the first role, the rating
being selected from a plurality of ratings when the control is
assessed based on a predetermined level; [and]
[ 14] updating the rating based on the attempt to remediate the
lSSUe.
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
4
Appeal2014-001313
Application 11/002,809
Claim limitation [7] requires introducing a constraint to prevent the
first person from making predetermined changes to role assignments.
Keinsley at paragraph 601 discloses that the "Assign Roles process" can be
set up with start and end times. Here, the time constraint prevents changes
from being made outside that time serving as a "constraint" meeting the
cited claim limitation.
Claim limitation [ 10] is directed to indicating a rating in the list that is
based on an assessment of a control associated with the first role, with the
rating selected from a plurality of ratings, when the control is assessed based
on a predetermined level. Shea at paragraph 91 discloses that control ratings
associated with a risk can have actions assigned to assignees or groups
which serves as the claimed "rating based on an assessment of a control
associated with a first role." Shea at paragraph 22 discloses a warning
console with color-coded results which would serve as a "plurality of
ratings" that are "based on a predetermined ievei" thus showing the eiements
of this argued claim limitation.
Claim limitation [ 14] requires "updating the rating based on the
attempt to remediate the issue." Shea at paragraph 98 discloses a risk
management and mitigation system that are associated with the control and
having an evaluation rating which shows both mediation and the rating
system. Regardless, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
determined that the updating of the rating based on the attempt to remediate
would have been an obvious modification to have a more accurate rating
based on most recent actions. In KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007) the Court stated that when considering obviousness that "the analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
5
Appeal2014-001313
Application 11/002,809
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." KSR,
at 418.
As the argued claim limitations have been shown in the cited prior art,
the rejections of claim 1, and the remaining claims which were not
separately argued, are sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---62 are sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a).
AFFIRMED
6