Appeal 2007-0644
Application 10/081,500
algorithm used for encryption to the authenticating entity. We thus do not
sustain the rejection of claim 9.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Andersson and Hara is affirmed. The rejection of claims
6-10 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Andersson, Hara, and
Tsudik is affirmed with respect to claims 6-8 and 10, but reversed with
respect to claim 9. The Examiner’s decision is thus affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KIS
MYERS, BIGEL, SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A.
P. O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013