Appeal No.2003-0446
Application No.09/127767
count value, and said first challenge response being a result of
performing a keyed cryptographic function (KCF) on said first
challenge and said count value using a first key; and
(e) verifying said first party based on said first
challenge, said second challenge, and said first challenge
response.1
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Alfred Menezes et al., "Handbook of Applied Cryptography", CRC
Press 1997, pp.397-404. (Menezes)
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Menezes.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed May 22, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 11
filed March 04, 2002) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 13, filed July
22, 2002) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant indicates on
page 13 of the Brief that the claims are to be grouped together
in eight groups. However, the appellant presented the same
argument for claims 4, 9, 10, and 17 as for claims 13 and 16,
1 Note that claim 12 and all claims dependent from claim 12 do not
include steps (c) and (d) but jump directly from step (b) to step (e).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007