Appeal 2006-2936
Application 10/013,714
2. As depicted in Figure 1, Dan teaches a third party certification
agency (15) that signs a certificate to identify the author of a program
associated therewith and an ACL to ensure the integrity of the program.
(Abstract, Col. 1, ll. 40-48.)
ANALYSIS
Having decided to grant Appellant’s request, we have modified our
prior decision with respect to dependent claims 4 and 16, 8, 6 and 18, 7 and
19, 27 and 45, 30 and 48, 47, 50, 51 and 5 as follows:
Claims 4 and 16
Appellant contends that Britton does not anticipate claims 4 and 16
since Britton fails to teach the limitation of verifying the safety of the
program before making the data access permission setting for the program to
access the database. (Br. 13, Reply Br. 7-8.) We agree with Appellant.
We find that Britton’s teaching is limited to verifying that a desired property
of an object is contained in the access list of the object before allowing a
user to access such property. (Finding 1.) Britton is otherwise silent on the
notion of verifying that the interface program is safe for use. In our view,
Britton’s teaching of checking the property of an object does not particularly
lend itself to verifying whether the interface program is safe before setting
data access permission for each user. We therefore reverse this rejection.
Claim 8
Appellant contends that Britton does not anticipate claim 8 since it
fails to teach the limitation of verifying the safety of the program before
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013