Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
security number is shown by East at col. 2, lines 6 to 14 and
lines 22 to 24. Thus, the Examiner has referred above both to
Lockwood and East for the concept of “a common resource
configuration having a common security number.” However, we
find that Lockwood and East, either singly or together, do not
meet the claimed limitations of “resources that belong to a
common resource configuration having a common security number”
and “assigning access control over an entire respective
resource configuration.” [One such example of a common
resource configuration having the same security number is,
incidently, shown by fig. 2 of Appellants’ specification.]
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 over Lockwood and East.
As other independent claims, 4 and 6, each have
limitations which correspond to the limitations discussed
above, they are not obvious over Lockwood and East for the
same rationale as claim 1 above. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 4 and 6 over Lockwood and East.
With respect to all the dependent claims, 2, 8 and 9,
they at least contain the limitations of their respective
independent claims and, consequently, distinguish over
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007