Appeal 2007-0153
Application 09/792,918
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 13-15, 17-20, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30-32, 35, 37, 38,
40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Pachauri.
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pachauri and Bienvenu.
3. Claims 3, 7-10, 12, 21, 26, 29, 36, and 39 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pachauri and Wood.
4. Claims 22, 23, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pachauri and Lewis.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the
Examiner.
We affirm-in-part.
ISSUES
The issues on appeal are whether Examiner makes a prima facie case
for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner characterizes the “test security” function 240 in Figure
2 of Pachauri as the claimed “testing whether access to said resource is
authorized” (Answer 3) and argues that testing for the actions a user is
authorized to do is the same as testing for access authorization (Answer 9-
10). Appellant contends that the testing performed in Pachauri only
determines whether a user can perform certain actions instead of testing
access to a resource, which means that the security module presumes access
without testing for it (Br. 5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013