Appeal No. 2003-0100
Application No. 09/298,663
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’
grouping of the claims, at page 3 of the principal brief, all
claims will stand or fall together. Accordingly, we will focus
on independent claim 13.
It is the examiner’s position that Wobber discloses the
claimed invention but for the explicit use of “selectively
issuing tickets . . . each ticket authorizing at least one type
of data access . . .” However, the examiner contends that Wobber
discloses that each storage system is aware of objects, with each
object having an access control list indicating a type of access
for each specified principal, pointing to column 2, lines 18-22.
The examiner further identifies column 5, lines 29-34, for a
teaching, by Wobber, of each storage node having an
authentication agent that keeps track of which principles are
generally authenticated to access data (see page 3 of the
answer). It is the examiner’s contention that these teachings,
by Wobber, “would have provided the use of selectively issuing
data class and access authorizations to principals upon access
request” (answer, page 3).
The examiner also points to Lawlor (abstract, column 7,
lines 15-43 and column 8) for a teaching of the use of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007