Appeal No.2003-0446
Application No.09/127767
because it would omit message (1), i.e., it would omit the first
challenge sent and would omit performing a keyed cryptographic
function on both the count value and the first challenge as
required by claim 12. This argument, however, is not supported
because Menezes clearly shows protocol SKID3 as used for a one-
pass authentication where step (1) is required to complete the
authentication process (Menezes, page 402). Further, even if
using a count value instead of a random number eliminates one
message, that message is connected to the random number that was
interchanged with the count value, which in this case is the
random number present in step (2) and not the one present in step
(1). Menezes clearly discloses in step (2) on page 402 that the
keyed cryptographic function uses the first challenge.
Accordingly, we find appellant's arguments unpersuasive, and we
will sustain the rejection of claims 12, 14, 15, and 18-20.
Group II: Claims 4, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 17.
Appellant's argument (Brief, pages 17-19) focuses on the
fact that the Examiner failed to interpret the words "first key"
and a "second key" according to their plain meaning, namely, that
there are two separate keys. Also, Appellant asserts that the
Examiner failed to interpret the meaning of the claim altogether.
However, on page 401 Menezes clearly discloses that in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007