Appeal 2007-0463
Application 09/896,537
THE CLAIMS
The independent claims before us are claims 1, 11, 14, and 20, of which
claim 1 reads:
1. A method comprising:
receiving content comprising a set of attributes having L
through N levels of access, where L<N, and content at a given level of
access being decryptable by a corresponding key;
receiving a base key corresponding to an M of N level of
access, where L<=M<=N; and
deriving lower level keys based on the base key, the lower level
keys being used to access content having an M level of access or
lower.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations.
THE REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Arazi US 5,448,639 Sep. 5, 1995
Eyer US 5,485,577 Jan. 16, 1996
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) for anticipation by Eyer.
Claims 3, 13, 16, and 22 stand rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness over
Eyer in view of Arazi.
Because Appellants argue the claims rejected for anticipation as a group, we
will consider only claim 1 as to that ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013