Appeal 2007-1842
Application 09/948,889
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 7, 10, 13, 21, 22, and 25 and also the obviousness
rejections of claims 9, 11, 12, 14, 16 through 20, 23, and 24.
OPINION
The Examiner asserts (Answer 4) that Hale discloses a security
module (216) "select[ing] from at least two available security services (e.g.,
security policies, verification, and authentication services) in response to a
request for security services," as recited in each of independent claims 7, 14,
and 21. Appellants' sole contention (Br. 11) is that Hale discloses a single
security policy which provides authentication of subjects, thereby providing
access control and, thus, that Hale discloses a single security service.
Appellants do not argue the combination of Hale with Schell and/or Sjödin.
They merely assert that neither cures the alleged deficiency of Hale. The
issue, therefore, is whether Hale discloses a selection from at least two
available security services.
The Examiner (Answer 4 and 14-15) directs our attention to
paragraphs [0003-0004, 0012-0015, 0016-0018, and 0024] of Hale as
providing teachings for the claimed security services module selecting from
at least two available security services. The Examiner explains (Answer
14-15) that Hale discloses authenticating or verifying subjects' identities or
people to access the system, granting access to objects of the system, and
granting a particular subject identity access to the objects. Thus, according
to the Examiner, Hale discloses plural security services.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013