Appeal No. 2006-2936
Application No. 10/013,714
unreasonable interpretation of the claim term that is
inconsistent with both the specification and the
interpretation one skilled in the art would attribute
to the term. Further, regulating user access does not
inherently teach regulating program access. For
example, two different users accessing the OODB of
Britton, using the same program may not be granted
access, depending upon the object level permission
control number that regulates the access by the user.
Further, at page 5 of the Reply Brief, Appellant states the
following:
There is no disclosure in Britton that is directed
to setting a permission for a user interface program of
Britton. Further, it does not necessarily flow from the
disclosure that any permission must necessarily be set
in order for a user to run a user interface program. It
is possible that the user may operate a user interface
program without any settings being made for the user
interface program that accesses the database. Since it
does not necessarily flow that a permission setting is
made for the “program,” it is respectfully submitted
that Britton fails to inherently teach the user
accessing the database using the user interface
program, for which a permission setting has been made.
To determine whether claim 1 is anticipated, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. We note that representative
claim 1 reads in part as follows:
[M]aking a data access permission setting for the
program which accesses the database storing sets of
data for each of which a security level setting is
made.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007