Appeal 2007-1720
Application 09/148,832
contents, who can distribute the object, and what other control mechanisms must
be active (Appeal Br. 15). Appellants also admit that Ginter’s traveling object
structure 860 includes a permissions record (PERC) 808 within a private header
804 (Appeal Br. 16). Appellants argue, however, that Ginter does not disclose a
predetermined information structure (or format) defining a boundary. Appellants
argue that Ginter appears to merely disclose generally that a “rules and control”
object may contain certain access control type data, and it does not provide a
predetermined structure or format for embedding such data (Reply Br. 7). We
disagree.
The object data structure of Ginter is equivalent to the claimed “data
package” because the data residing in the object/data package is composed of data
relating to the transaction, such as content materials (FF 7), and attribute data for
the transaction such as permission records (FF 8). The permission records within
the objects describe the scope of the data that may be accessed and therefore the
boundary of the data that is accessible (FF 9). Further, Ginter’s data package has a
format, e.g., the object data structure of Figures 17, 19, 20, and 73 (FF 6). Each of
Ginter’s object types has a format that differs in size and content from one another
and has variable content that results in its size and contents differing from other
instances of the same object (FF 10). A different size implies a different boundary
(FF 11). Thus, the type of object and the number of data blocks in the object are
attributes for the transaction that affect the defined boundary (FF 12).
Accordingly, Ginter discloses a “data package in which the data relating to the
transaction and the attribute has a format defining a boundary in accordance with
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013