Appeal 2007-0153
Application 09/792,918
The issues turn on whether a preponderance of the evidence shows
that Pachauri anticipates Appellant’s claimed invention by disclosing the
step of “testing whether access to said resource is authorized based on said
access information without granting authorization to said resource.”
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pachauri relates to managing security of a database based on limiting
the users to performing actions on the database that are dictated by defined
task groups the user is assigned to (Abstract; col. 2, ll. 24-38).
Pachauri further discloses that the system for managing the security
of the database uses a test security module 240 to ensure that a database user
can perform actions that are included in the user’s security profile (Figure 2;
col. 5, ll. 34-40).
Pachauri describes “task groups” as specific business activities that
include certain actions (col. 7, ll. 61-64).
Pachauri further describes “action” as a function that can be
performed on a database or even limited to functions performed on a
particular type of data (col. 10, ll. 49-52).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013