Appeal 2006-2937
Application 09/840,188
recited limitations. Both Thomson and Denning teach accessing the
data in the table therefore, they both teach “controlling access to the
specified proper subset of data in the table according to the separately
maintained information.” The Examiner has provided at page 4 of the
Answer a convincing line of reasoning as to why it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the
invention to have combined the teachings of Thomson and Denning to
limit access to the data, which we do not find controverted by
Appellant in the Brief or the Reply Brief. Therefore, we find that the
Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness which has
not been adequately rebutted nor has Appellant shown error therein.
Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain
the rejection of independent claim 18. Additionally, we will sustain
the rejection of independent claims 48, 56, and 86 and dependent
claims which Appellant has grouped therewith in the heading on page
10 of the Brief.
With respect to independent claims 41 and 79, Appellant argues
that neither Thomson nor Denning discloses “storing first and second
cryptographic information outside of the table” (Br. 7). Appellant
maintains that the Examiner’s reliance upon the field key as the
second cryptographic information outside of the table is in error since
the field key is generated from the stored master along with other
information. We disagree with Appellant and find that the language
of independent claim 41 only requires “second cryptographic
information outside of the table” and not a key. Arguably the unique
field identifier, primary key, which is not a cryptographic key
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013