Appeal No. 2003-0100
Application No. 09/298,663
Also, as pointed out by appellants, since column 5, lines
29-34, of Wobber indicates that each node’s authentication agent
maintains an “Auth ID table,” which lists the name of the
principal and its assigned Auth ID, it is clear that each storage
node has an authentication agent that keeps track of what
principals are generally authenticated to access data. Accord-
ingly, as explained by appellants, at page 4 of the principal
brief, “there would be no need in Wobber . . . for . . .
selectively issuing data class and access authorizations to
principals upon access request so that the principals can present
them to the storage devices to gain access, thereby facilitating
management of data access” because the principal, in Wobber, is
already authenticated for particular access types to particular
objects by means of the ACL of each object.
Moreover, with regard to combining Wobber with Lawlor, the
only rationale given by the examiner for the combination is that
the artisan would have been “motivated to selectively issue a
data class and access authorization in response to a request
because such a data class and access authorization would provide
Wobber’s system the enhanced capability increasing the speed and
performance of the system” (answer, page 4, first paragraph).
There is no indication, anywhere, in the applied references, that
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007