Appeal 2006-2937
Application 09/840,188
operations on the card as recited in claim 23. (Answer 22). Therefore,
Appellant's argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 23 over Thomson, Denning,
and Gaskell and the dependent claims which Appellant has elected to
group therewith on page 15 of the Brief.
With respect to dependent claim 24, Appellant reiterates the
language of the claim and maintains that Gaskell fails to teach using a
smart card for a proper subset which is in row and column format but
teaches ticket granting. 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 with data in row and
column format, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at
the time of the invention to store the key for cryptographic operations
on the card as recited in claim 24 which would access only a portion
of the data. (Answer 22). Therefore, Appellant's argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 23 over Thomson, Denning, and Gaskell and the dependent
claims which Appellant has elected to group therewith on page 15 of
the Brief.
With respect to dependent claim 34, Appellant relies upon the
arguments made with respect to dependent claim 24 which we did not
find persuasive. Therefore, Appellant's argument is not persuasive,
and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 34
over Thomson, Denning, and Gaskell and the dependent claims which
Appellant has elected to group therewith on page 16 of the Brief.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013