Appeal 2007-1842
Application 09/948,889
We have reviewed Hale, paying particular attention to the portions
relied upon by the Examiner, and we find no selection of security services.
Hale discloses (abstract) that the Access Mediator "embodies the rules of a
predetermined security policy," which in turn "determines which subjects
can have access to which objects (data) to perform a requested operation."
Hale repeats the above-noted quotations in paragraphs [0004], [0012], and
[0024]. Hale further discloses (paragraphs [0013], [0018], and [0021]) that
when the Access Mediator is called, the information passed to the Access
Mediator includes the subject's identity, the object's identity, and the
requested operation. Hale then states (paragraphs [0013], [0018], and
[0021]) that the Access Mediator determines whether or not the subject can
access the object to perform the requested operation. Thus, the Access
Mediator provides only one service, authenticating subjects. Contrary to the
Examiner's analysis, authenticating and access control in Hale are one and
the same. There are not two separate security services to be selected.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 7, 10, 13,
21, 22, and 25.
The Examiner did not rely upon Schell or Sjödin to satisfy the claimed
selection of two or more security services, and we find nothing in either
reference that would suggest this limitation. Consequently, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 over Hale in
view of Schell, of claims 9, 14, 16, 19, and 20 over Hale in view of Sjödin,
and of claims 17 and 18 over Hale in view of Sjödin and Schell.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013