Appeal No. 2003-1729 Page 6
Application No. 09/229,733
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing
Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264,
1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d760, 771,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed
element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565,
1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, Murphy "authenticat[es] a user over a network, with the network having a
client computer and a server computer, and the client computer having a smart card
and a smart card reader." Col. 3, ll. 31-34. More specifically, "[t]he client sends a
request to the server to access restricted information stored by the server. The server
sends [a] smart card interface module . . . to the client," id. at ll. 35-37, and then
"requests an access code from the user to access the smart card." Id. at ll.37-38.
"Once the server receives the access code, the server accesses user information stored
on the smart card utilizing the program and the access code. The server compares the
user information with authentication information available to the server but not the client.
If the user information matches the authentication information, the server grants the
client access to the restricted information." Id. at ll. 38-45.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007