Appeal No.2003-0446
Application No.09/127767
and, therefore, we regrouped the claims accordingly. The
following groups remain:
GROUP I: Claims 12, 14, 15 and 18-20.
GROUP II: Claims 4, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 17.
GROUP III: Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 11.
GROUP IV: Claims 7, 8, 21 and 22.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art reference, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-20 and
reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 8, 21 and 22.
Group I: Claims 12, 14, 15 and 18-20.
Independent claim 12 recites in step (b) of the
authenticating process that the second challenge received by the
second party is a count value. The reference Menezes uses a
random number as the second challenge instead of a count value
(Menezes, page 402). The Examiner in rejecting the claim
asserted that "pages 397-400 of Menezes et al. disclose
interchangeability in authentication protocols of random numbers,
such as rA, with sequence numbers, such as the count value"
(Final Rejection, page 7) and that "one of ordinary skill in the
art would have known replay attacks were used to subvert
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007