Appeal 2006-2107
Application 09/969,833
and “[the method of claim 1] does not implicate any particular mathematical
algorithm(s).” (Br. 6).
Additionally with respect to claim 1, Appellant admits “[l]ike the
statutory claim at issue in State Street, claim 1 does involve computations.”
(Br. 6). Appellant then argues “output values of one-way chains . . . are in
and of themselves useful, concrete and tangible results in the field of
cryptography” because “such values, in and of themselves, can be used as
passwords.” (Br. 6).
With respect to dependent method claim 6, Appellant argues the
recited limitation on the complexity of the storage-computation product “is a
useful, concrete and tangible result because it allows one-way chains to be
implemented in lightweight devices [, i.e., devices having limited memory
and processor resources].” (Br. 7).
With respect to dependent method claim 13, Appellant argues “the
recited limitation on the computational budget associated with generation of
an output value and relocation of pegs is itself a useful, concrete and
tangible result” because “it allows a given one-way chain to be implemented
in a lightweight device having limited memory and processor resources.”
(Br. 8).
With respect to dependent method claim 19, Appellant repeats the
argument of claim 13. Appellant again argues “the recited limitation on the
computational budget associated with generation of an output value and
relocation of pegs is itself a useful, concrete and tangible result” because “it
allows a given one-way chain to be implemented in a lightweight device
having limited memory and processor resources.” (Br. 8).
With respect to independent apparatus claim 20, Appellant argues
“[t]he claim at issue is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013