Appeal 2006-2936
Application 10/013,714
Claims 27 and 45
Appellant alleges that Britton’s teachings are insufficient to anticipate
claims 27 and 45. (Br. 22.) However, mere allegations do not amount to an
argument that particularly shows how the Examiner’s reliance on the cited
textual portions of Britton does not anticipate the cited claims. In our view,
such allegations do not rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of anticipation
against the cited claims.
Further, we note that dependent claims 27 and 45 require the
limitation of making the data access permission setting for the program to
access a database that stores sets of data for each of which a security level
setting is made. (Br. Appendix A.) We find that Britton reasonably teaches
this limitation. As discussed in the original Decision, we found that Britton
teaches an access control list (ACL) which serves as a gatekeeper to control
the user’s access of the database. (Decision 12, ll. 16-22.) We also found
that Britton teaches assigning an ACL level to an interface program, which
serves as a proxy for the user, each time a request to access the database is
made. (Decision 11, ll. 10-21.) Particularly, the ACL reviews the user’s
profile in the interface program and subsequently uses such information to
set appropriate access levels of data in the database for the interface
program. (Id. 11, ll. 2-7, ll. 10-14.) It is therefore our view that one of
ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that Britton’s disclosure of
setting access levels in the database for the user via the interface program
teaches setting access levels program as well. It follows that the Examiner
did not err in finding that Britton teaches making a data access permission
setting to access data in the database. We therefore affirm this rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013