Appeal No. 2004-1156
Application No. 09/071,594
With respect to independent claim 37, accepting appellants’ interpretation
discussed above and the examiner’s position, we find no such corresponding limitation
in independent claim 37 concerning the selection of a policy object from a plurality of
policy objects. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive with respect to independent
claim 37, and we cannot group independent claim 37 with independent claims 1 and 23.
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Grimm only has one
policy service and it is not obtained/selected based on a proposed action received from
an application program or the like that is seeking a policy decision. (See brief at page
10.) We evaluate this argument with respect to independent claim 37 and find that the
teachings of Grimm and Brandt do teach and fairly suggest that the security policy
service is obtained based on data that identifies a proposed action. Here, we find that
the language of independent claim 37 is broader than the language in independent
claim 1. We find that the security login procedures of Brandt would have been a policy
decision with which a policy decision is made to allow the proposed action to allow
access to an individual seeking access. The inputting of the account information and
password, etc. would have been from a source independent of the requesting entity.
The requesting entity would have been the user’s computer and the user would have
been a source independent of the requesting entity.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007