Appeal No. 2004-0755
Application No. 09/110,109
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Deinhart.1,2
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to address
only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 9 and 14.
Claim 1
Deinhart discloses a system and method for authorizing and
controlling access rights of subjects on objects of a computer
system using parameterized role types and access control lists
derived from capability lists that provide access rights on a
per-subject basis (col. 3, lines 5-26; col. 12, lines 8-30).
The examiner argues that “performance evaluation system” in
the preamble of the appellants’ claim 1 is mere intended use
which does not provide a structural, operational or functional
difference relative to Deinhart and, therefore, does not provide
a patentable distinction over Deinhart (answer, pages 5-10).
1 Twelve rejections of claims 1-9, 11-14 and 16-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 are withdrawn in the examiner’s answer (page 4).
2 The “First ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control”
publication relied upon by the examiner (answer, page 9) is not
included in the statement of the rejection and, therefore, is not
properly before us. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166
USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Consequently, we do not consider
that publication in reaching our decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007