Appeal 2007-0645
Application 10/242,898
1 Appellants’ specification on page 7 states “[t]he algorithm determines
2 whether the user is explicitly assigned to the requested file or folder.” Thus, the
3 scope of the term security algorithm includes an algorithm that checks user access
4 to a file or folder. As discussed supra, we find that Sitka teaches the use of
5 algorithms to determine a user’s authorization to access files. Thus, contrary to
6 Appellants’ arguments, we find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s finding
7 that Sitka teaches the claimed security database and algorithm.
8
9 CONCLUSION
10 We find for the Examiner as we find that Sitka teaches the claimed
11 “document vault database” and “security database and algorithm portion.” Thus,
12 Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections
13 of claims 1 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain this
14 rejection. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
15 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
16 appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
17
18 AFFIRMED
19
20
21
22
23 vsh
24 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP
25 P.O. BOX 203518
26 AUSTIN TX 78720
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013