Appeal 2007-0644
Application 10/081,500
lines 60 through 66 of Tsudik.1 We are thus not persuaded that the
combined teachings of Andersson, Hara, and Tsudik fail to teach or suggest
the additional step of obtaining a digest as claimed. Moreover, Appellant’s
Specification admits (e.g., at 3: 14-24; Fig. 1) that digests were conventional
in the art to reduce processing and communication overheads.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of
representative claims 1 and 6, but find no error in their rejection. Claims 2-
5, 7, 8, and 10-14 fall with claims 1 and 6.
Instant claim 9 recites that the method of claim 1 further includes that
the user sends details of the algorithm used for encryption to the
authenticating entity. The rejection (Answer 6) refers to column 5, lines 27
through 48 of Tsudik for the teaching. That section of Tsudik teaches that a
user, when travelling to a foreign domain, must not only be authenticated but
also identified to the foreign domain. The identity of the user must also be
communicated to the home domain authority.
We agree with Appellant (Br. 11) that the cited portions of Tsudik do
not disclose or suggest the algorithm recitation of claim 9. The Examiner
has not provided the article (“Molva”) describing authentication of a user
that Tsudik incorporates by reference at column 5, lines 38 through 40; we
conclude that the rejection does not rely on any details of the Molva article
that cannot be found within Tsudik. Further, the Examiner has not provided
any evidence that it was conventional in the art to send details of the
1 Tsudik refers to the “MD5” algorithm as disclosed by Rivest, which is item
9, not item 7, in the references listed in column 3 of Tsudik.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013