Ex Parte PepperDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 12, 201311426314 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TIMOTHY C. PEPPER ____________ Appeal 2010-008731 Application 11/426,3141 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to methods and apparatus for obtaining information based on user’s access rights. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 26, 2009), the Answer (mailed Jul. 22, 2009), and the Reply Brief (filed Sep. 22, 2009). 1 The Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal 2010-008731 Application 11/426,314 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Information is searched for in response to receiving a query from a user requesting the information. However, the information located is inaccessible by the user due to the information requiring access rights that the user does not have. Therefore, related information requiring access rights that the user does have is searched for and returned to the user for viewing by the user. The information may be stored in a first data store to which the user does not have access rights, and the related information may be stored in a second data store to which the user does have access rights. The information and the related information may be stored in the same data object, which includes first data representing the information and the access rights that the user does not have, and second data representing the related information and the access rights that the user does have. (Abstract). Claims 1-11 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 6 are independent.2 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 6, which are reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: searching for information requested by a user; where the information located is inaccessible by the user due to the information requiring access rights that the user does not have, searching for related information requiring access rights that the user has; and, returning the related information located to the user. 2 Claims 12-20 are cancelled. (App. Br. 10). Appeal 2010-008731 Application 11/426,314 3 6. A computer-implemented method comprising: organizing information over a plurality of levels of abstraction within a data object; associating a plurality of levels of access rights to the levels of abstraction within the data object, such that each level of abstraction has a different level of access rights; storing the data object, including the information, the levels of abstraction over which the information is organized, and the levels of access rights to which the levels of abstraction having been associated; and, in response to receiving a query requesting the information from a user having predetermined access rights, returning all the levels of abstraction of the information that the predetermined access rights of the user permit the user to view, based on the levels of access rights associated with the levels of abstraction of the information as stored within the data object. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner has rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sidman.3 (Ans. 3-7). CLAIMS 1-5 CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE Appellant contends that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claim 1 in view of Sidman. Appellant contends that dependent claims 2-5 are patentable in view of their dependence from claim 1. (App. Br. 4). Appellant contends that Sidman is not anticipatory because Sidman fails to teach, inter alia, returning “related information” as claimed in claim 1. (App. Br. 5). The Examiner’s Answer finds that: 3 Sidman, US 2004/0088333 A1, May 6, 2004. Appeal 2010-008731 Application 11/426,314 4 (1) Sidman discloses that the desired information is inaccessible because it is protected and the user does not have access rights. (Ans. 7). (2) Sidman discloses a relational database where same and related content is jointly stored such that the search engine is able to retrieve information that user does not have access to. (Ans. 8). (3) Sidman discloses providing access to the found information which is equivalent to “returning” the related information. (Ans. 8). Appellant’s Reply contends that Sidman relates to procedures whereby a user may be granted access rights to inaccessible (encrypted) information. Appellant contends that Sidman does not disclose searching for and returning “related information” instead of “the information that the user requested.” (Reply Br. 2-3). ANALYSIS We decline to sustain the rejection of claims 1-5. Appellant is persuasive that Sidman does not disclose at least one claimed limitation. Specifically, Sidman does not disclose where the requested information requires access rights that the user does not have, searching for related information requiring access rights possessed by the user. The Examiner finds that Sidman discloses “searching for related information.” (Ans. 8 (citing Sidman ¶ 0101, ll. 1-6)). The cited passage in Sidman relates to providing metadata about the requested and related information. The cited passage does not disclose searching for and providing the “related information.” Nor does this passage relate to the user’s access rights to said “related information.” The claimed searching for related information requiring access rights possessed by the user is not disclosed in the cited passage. Appeal 2010-008731 Application 11/426,314 5 CLAIMS 6-11 CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE Appellant contends that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claim 6 in view of Sidman. Appellant contends that dependent claims 7-11 are patentable in view of their dependence from claim 6. (App. Br. 6). Appellant contends that Sidman is not anticipatory because it fails to disclose that in response to receiving a query requesting information from a user having predetermined access rights, all the levels of abstraction of the information that the predetermined access rights of the user permit the user to view are returned. This is based on the levels of access rights associated with the levels of abstraction of the information as stored within a data object, as claimed in claim 6. (App. Br. 6). The Examiner frames the issue as “[d]oes Sidman show or suggest a method comprising ‘levels of abstraction within a data object’”? (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds that “Sidman discloses based on the various context of use, data is structured and associated with different level and locations.” (Ans. 9 (citing Sidman, Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0017, 0065, 0132)). Appellant replies that a data object may have a plurality of levels of abstraction, each level requiring a different level of user access rights. Appellant contends that Sidman discloses that a data object may have varying levels of abstraction, but Sidman does not disclose that the system returns to the user all levels of abstraction consistent with the user’s access rights as claimed in claim 6. (Reply Br. 6). ANALYSIS We decline to sustain the rejection of claims 6-11. Appellant is persuasive that Sidman does not disclose at least one claimed limitation. Appeal 2010-008731 Application 11/426,314 6 Specifically, Sidman does not disclose returning all the levels of abstraction of the information that the predetermined access rights of the user permit the user to view, as claimed. We agree. SUMMARY We reverse the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. REVERSED babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation