Appeal 2006-2937
Application 09/840,188
proper subset of the table. Appellant further argues that the field key
of Denning is used to access a proper subset of the table, but that the
field key is calculated rather than stored (Br. 12).
We agree with the individual differences which Appellant
identifies for each reference, but when viewed in the totality of the
teachings and suggestions in the prior art, we do not find Appellant’s
argument to be persuasive. We find that while the Examiner has
provided varied positions in the answer as to the claim interpretations
and teachings, we find that the combination of Thomson and Denning
would have fairly suggested the invention as recited in independent
claim 18. Thomson teaches “A data processing method comprising:
maintaining a database containing a table of data in row and column
format,” but not necessarily “at least a portion of the data being
encrypted.” We find that Denning clearly teaches storing data in
encrypted form for limited access to portions of the data. Thomson
teaches “maintaining, separate from the table of data, information for
controlling access to a specified [proper] subset of data in the table,”
but arguably not a “proper” subset. We find that Denning clearly
teaches maintaining a master key which would clearly access the
entire data, but less than the entire data if desired. We find that if the
master can access all then it can also access less than all or be used to
generate/calculate field keys for the individual fields.
Here we find the language of independent claim 18 to be
broader than requiring the key to be maintained. The language of
independent claim 18 recites merely “information” where the master
being maintained and used to generate a field key would meet the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013