International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019003861 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2020)

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.
15/468,771 03/24/2017 Manjeri R. Dharmarajan IN920110072US2 1191
50170 7590 12/30/2020
IBM CORP. (WIP)
c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
445 CRESTOVER CIRCLE
RICHARDSON, TX 75080
EXAMINER
PAN, PEILIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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 MANJERI R. DHARMARAJAN, KAUSHAL K. KAPADIA,
VIGNESHWARNATH MIRIYALA, NATARAJ NAGARATNAM,
DARSHINI G. SWAMY, and SUYESH R. TIWARI
________________

Appeal 2019-003861
Application 15/468,771
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–16, and 18–22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as International Business Machines
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003861
Application 15/468,771

2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “facilitating
recertification of a user access entitlement” by outputting a “recertification
request graphical user interface” that “includes [a] pattern of access and one
or more graphical user interface elements for receiving a user input
specifying acceptance or denial of the recertification of the user access
entitlement.” Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
(disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added)
1. A method, in a data processing system having a processor
implemented in hardware, for recertification of a user access
entitlement, comprising:
collecting, from a system resource of the data processing
system, access information representative of a pattern of access
of the system resource by a user access entitlement;
determining, by the processor, that recertification of the user
access entitlement, with regard to the system resource, is to be
performed;
determining, by the processor, at least one first access metric
associated with the user access entitlement based on the access
information for the user access entitlement; and
[1] outputting, by the processor, a recertification request
graphical user interface to a user based on the pattern of
access, wherein the recertification request graphical user
interface comprises:
[2] a representation of a comparison of the at least one
first access metric, associated with the user access
entitlement, with one or more second access metrics
associated with one or more other user access
entitlements, and
[3] one or more graphical user interface elements for
receiving a user input specifying acceptance or denial of
Appeal 2019-003861
Application 15/468,771

3

the recertification of the user access entitlement, wherein
the at least one first access metric and the one or more
second access metrics comprise values indicative of
previous access operations by corresponding user access
entitlements.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Gill et al. (“Gill”) US 2011/0126111 A1 May 26, 2011
John US 8,166,554 B2 Apr. 24, 2012
rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1–6, 8–16, and 18–22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Gill and John. Final Act. 2–10.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Gill’s
graphical modeling capabilities, used to automate, monitor, and track re-
affirmation projects teaches or suggests recitation [1]: “outputting, by the
processor, a recertification request graphical user interface to a user based on
the pattern of access, wherein the recertification request graphical user
interface comprises.” Final Act. 3 (citing Gill ¶ 105); Ans. 12–13. The
Examiner further finds Gill’s use of graphical modeling capabilities in re-
affirmation projects teaches or suggests recitation [3]: “one or more
graphical user interface elements for receiving a user input specifying
acceptance or denial of the recertification of the user access entitlement.”
Final Act. 3 (citing Gill ¶¶ 105, 313, 316–23, 351); Ans. 6 (further citing
Gill ¶ 314). The Examiner finds Gill’s visual representations among entities
such as users combined with John’s pie charts showing what percentage of
Appeal 2019-003861
Application 15/468,771

4

accesses were by particular users teaches or suggests recitation [2]: “a
representation of a comparison of the at least one first access metric,
associated with the user access entitlement, with one or more second access
metrics associated with one or more other user access entitlements.” Final
Act. 3–4 (citing Gill ¶¶ 313, 316–23, 351, Figs. 11, 13; John 7:30–39; Fig.
7); Ans. 6–8. The Examiner finds Gill “relates to preventing, detecting,
mitigating, and responding to blended risks and threats” (Final Act. 5
(quoting Gill ¶ 3)) and that “John’s teaching could enhance the system of
Gill, because John teaches ‘This invention relates to providing security for
an enterprise, taking into consideration key factors such as people,
processes, and policies of the enterprise . . . and group resource uses’” (id.
(quoting John 1:9–12)). Thus, the Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine Gill and John in the
manner of claim 1. Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Gill is not concerned
with handling recertification of a user’s user access entitlement by
comparing the user’s access metrics with other user’s access metrics in a
graphical user interface along with elements for allowing a user to accept or
deny recertification.” Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 6.
The Specification provides support for disputed recitations [1]–[3] in
Figure 5, which is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-003861
Application 15/468,771

5

The Specification’s Figure 5 illustrates “an example diagram of a
recertification request review and approval graphical user interface.” Spec.
¶ 15. The graphical user interface “includes a user account information
section 510 which includes information about the user account that is subject
to the recertification operation.” Id. ¶ 71. This section includes “an identity
and access management system’s recommendation 512 as to whether to
accept or deny the recertification request,” but “[t]his recommendation is
only a recommendation and the actual acceptance or rejection of the
recertification is made by the recertifier by selecting a corresponding one of
the graphical user interface elements 516.” Id. ¶ 72.
To teach or suggest recitation [3], the Examiner cites to Gill’s Figures
11 and 13. Gill’s Figure 11 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-003861
Application 15/468,771

6

Gill’s Figure 11 shows “a sample screen shot showing the visual
simulation of risks and the ability to add or remove transactions related to
that role and see the resulting impact.” Gill ¶ 27. One of the disclosed
features of this interface is the ability to “[q]uickly and visually reaffirm
access, roles, risks, assets certifications and training.” Id. ¶ 317. But Gill’s
Figure 11 does not depict any “graphical user interface elements for
receiving a user input specifying acceptance or denial of [a] recertification of
[a] user access entitlement,” as recited in recitation [3] of claim 1.
Gill’s Figure 13 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-003861
Application 15/468,771

7

Gill’s Figure 13 depicts “a sample screen showing how a user may
track and log privileged access for IT applications as well as physical access
to facilities and critical assets.” Gill ¶ 29. In particular, it “shows a list of
events that took place during an individual’s privileged access session.” Id.
¶ 389. Like Gill’s Figure 11, Figure 13 does not depict any “graphical user
interface elements for receiving a user input specifying acceptance or denial
of [a] recertification of [a] user access entitlement,” as recited in recitation
[3] of claim 1.
With respect to recitation [3], the Examiner also cites to Gill’s
AlertCertify teaching, “which provides a highly visual computer-
implemented system solution with powerful graphical modeling
capabilit[ies] to completely automate, monitor and track the numerous re-
affirmation projects that risk and compliance analysts, IT security and
business managers must complete.” Gill ¶ 105 (cited in Final Act. 3). And
the Examiner cites to Gill’s disclosure that a “[r]equest creation processor
sends data to a risk analysis processor, which processes the data and then
Appeal 2019-003861
Application 15/468,771

8

makes the processed data available to a manager.” Id. ¶ 314 (cited in Ans.
6). This can be used when providing “roles-based dashboards to reviewers,
administrators, auditors and risk managers with [the] added capability of
remediating risk, such as with a single click.” Id. ¶ 313 (cited in Final Act.
3).
Although these additional disclosures in Gill relate to re-affirmation
projects and to risk remediation with a single click, Gill is not specific as to
the graphical user interface elements used to provide these features. In
particular, like the cited figures discussed above, these disclosures in Gill do
not disclose the use of “graphical user interface elements for receiving a user
input specifying acceptance or denial of [a] recertification of [a] user access
entitlement,” as recited in recitation [3] of claim 1.
The Examiner provides limited analysis that fails to show that the
graphical user interface elements of recitation [3] would have been obvious
in light of the cited teachings of Gill. Final Act. 3; Ans. 6.The Examiner also
does not show that John cures the noted deficiency of Gill. Therefore, we
agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not show that the
combination of Gill and John teaches or suggests recitation [3].
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, or the rejection of claims 2–6, 8–16, 18–22, which
contain similar recitations.
Appeal 2019-003861
Application 15/468,771

9

CONCLUSION
Claims Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–16, 18–22 103(a) Gill, John 1–6, 8–16, 18–22
REVERSED