Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 8
Application No. 08/885,817
dam [sic] going to and from the Internet." Id. at col. 5, ll. 1-3. In acting as a
gatekeeper, we find that each firewall's CPU routes packets between its respective
private network and the Internet. For example, Aziz explains that node J's "[n]ormal
packet processing may include the delivery to an appropriate local transport entity, or
other outbound interface." Col. 11, ll. 11-13. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the appellants rely on their argument for claim 1. (Supp.
Appeal Br. at 5.) Having found that argument unpersuasive, we affirm the rejection of
claim 3.
B. CLAIMS 2, 11, 15, 25, 34, AND 35
Noting that "Aziz discloses that the public keys are included in the DH certificates
which are issued by a multitier certificate structure which also tracks the ownership of IP
addresses (col 16, line 60 - col 17, line 11)," (Supp. Examiner's Answer at 13), the
examiner "infers that the certification authority of Aziz is also operating as a domain
name server and binds public keys to IP addresses." (Id.) The appellants argue, "[i]n
Aziz, a private key (group interchange key) is obtained from the group owner." (Supp.
Appeal Br. at 6.) They further argue, "Aziz does not teach or suggest a domain name
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007