Ex Parte Pepper

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2013

11426314 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2013)

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