Appeal 2006-2937
Application 09/840,188
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine
the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker
Co., 150 F.3d 1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Therefore, we look to the limitations as recited in independent claim 18.
Here, we find that independent claim 18 recites:
A data processing method comprising:
maintaining a database containing a table of data in row
and column format, at least a portion of the data being
encrypted;
maintaining, separate from the table of data,
information for controlling access to a specified proper subset
of data in the table; and
controlling access to the specified proper subset of data
in the table according to the separately maintained information.
The examiner maintains that Thomson teaches almost the entire
claim, but for the data being stored in encrypted form. The Examiner
maintains that Denning teaches this field encrypting and that the
encryption technique ciphers each field of a record with a distinct
encryption key to prevent information from being ascertained without
the requisite key (Answer 3-4). We agree with the Examiner and find
that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness of
the invention as recited in independent claim 18.
Appellant argues that Thomson does not teach or suggest
“maintaining, separate from the table of data, … information for
controlling access to a specified proper subset of data” (Br. 12).
Appellant argues that the master key of Denning is stored separate
from the table of data, but that is used for the entire table and not for a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013