Appeal 2007-1955
Application 09/841,965
invention, neither Brown nor Peterka discloses the node-tree data structure
of access rights as claimed.
Our interpretation of the disclosure of Brown, relied on by the
Examiner as disclosing the claimed access rights manager tree data structure,
coincides with that of Appellants. We agree with Appellants that, at best,
Brown discloses a directory of available content objects in the form of a
node tree, but there is no disclosure of each node having a list of permitted
users for accessing access controlled objects as claimed.
The Examiner, in response, calls attention (Answer 11-12) to Brown’s
disclosure of an access control matrix in which permitted users of each
content node are listed in the columns of the matrix. We do not find this
convincing since the row-column matrix of access rights disclosed by Brown
does not satisfy the claimed requirement of a tree structure for the list of
permitted users.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that, since the Brown reference
does not overcome the deficiencies of Peterka in disclosing the claimed
node-tree data structure feature, the references, even if combined, do not
support the obviousness rejection. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 5, nor of claim 6
dependent thereon.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
rejection of appealed claims 1, 3, 4, and 7, but have not sustained the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 5 and 6. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
decision rejecting appealed claims 1 and 3-7 is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013