Appeal 2007-0246
Application 09/854,251
Bellare et al., “Keying Hash Functions for Message Authentication”,
Preliminary Version: Advances in Cryptology – Crypto 96 Proceedings,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1109, Springer-Verlag, (June
1996), pp. 1-19.
REJECTION
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, 16, and 19-21stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102
as being anticipated by Bellare.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jun. 14, 2006) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Mar. 20, 2006)
for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
reference, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013