Ex Parte Hayduk et al - Page 4

                Appeal 2007-1842                                                                             
                Application 09/948,889                                                                       

                      We have reviewed Hale, paying particular attention to the portions                     
                relied upon by the Examiner, and we find no selection of security services.                  
                Hale discloses (abstract) that the Access Mediator "embodies the rules of a                  
                predetermined security policy," which in turn "determines which subjects                     
                can have access to which objects (data) to perform a requested operation."                   
                Hale repeats the above-noted quotations in paragraphs [0004], [0012], and                    
                [0024].  Hale further discloses (paragraphs [0013], [0018], and [0021]) that                 
                when the Access Mediator is called, the information passed to the Access                     
                Mediator includes the subject's identity, the object's identity, and the                     
                requested operation.  Hale then states (paragraphs [0013], [0018], and                       
                [0021]) that the Access Mediator determines whether or not the subject can                   
                access the object to perform the requested operation.  Thus, the Access                      
                Mediator provides only one service, authenticating subjects.  Contrary to the                
                Examiner's analysis, authenticating and access control in Hale are one and                   
                the same.  There are not two separate security services to be selected.                      
                Accordingly, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 7, 10, 13,               
                21, 22, and 25.                                                                              
                      The Examiner did not rely upon Schell or Sjödin to satisfy the claimed                 
                selection of two or more security services, and we find nothing in either                    
                reference that would suggest this limitation.  Consequently, we cannot                       
                sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 over Hale in                 
                view of Schell, of claims 9, 14, 16, 19, and 20 over Hale in view of Sjödin,                 
                and of claims 17 and 18 over Hale in view of Sjödin and Schell.                              





                                                     4                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013