Ex Parte Dahl - Page 14

                  Appeal   2006-2937                                                                                           
                  Application   09/840,188                                                                                     
                  find persuasive.  Therefore, Appellant's argument is not persuasive,                                         
                  and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 44                                           
                  over Thomson, Denning, and Abraham and the dependent claims                                                  
                  which Appellant has elected to group therewith on page 14 of the                                             
                  Brief.                                                                                                       
                          With respect to dependent claim 69, Appellant relies upon the                                        
                  arguments made with respect to dependent claim 32 which we did not                                           
                  find persuasive.  Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive,                                         
                  and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 69                                           
                  over Thomson, Denning and Abraham and the dependent claims                                                   
                  which Appellant has elected to group therewith on page 14 of the                                             
                  Brief.                                                                                                       
                          With respect to dependent claim 82, Appellant relies upon the                                        
                  arguments made with respect to dependent claim 32, which was                                                 
                  grouped with independent claim 18, which we did not find persuasive.                                         
                  Therefore, Appellant's argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain                                       
                  the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 82 over Thomson,                                                 
                  Denning, and Abraham.                                                                                        
                          With respect to dependent claim 23, Appellant reiterates the                                         
                  language of the claim and maintains that Gaskells fails to teach using                                       
                  a smart card for a proper subset rather than accessing the entire                                            
                  system.  Here, we agree with the Examiner that the use of smart cards                                        
                  was well known as evidenced by Gaskell and that in the combination                                           
                  of Thomson and Denning, it would have been obvious to one skilled                                            
                  in the art at the time of the invention to store the key for cryptographic                                   


                                                              14                                                               

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013