Appeal 2007-0716
Application 09/946,201
the access rights as an image being protected or unprotected. Schreiber thus
teaches determining the access level of a client to a protected image based
on whether or not the client profile indicates that the client holds an
encryption key to decrypt the protected image. In light of these findings, it
is our reasoned opinion that Schreiber’s teachings amount to a processor that
discerns between HTML tags pertaining to protected data and unprotected
data, and that restricts the client’s access to protected data based on whether
the client profile indicates that the client has an encryption key. It follows
that the Examiner did not err in rejecting representative claim 1 as being
anticipated by Schreiber.
As to representative claim 2, we have found that Schreiber teaches
HTML tags in a webpage to designate whether images corresponding thereto
are protected (accessible only by authorized users) or unprotected
(accessible by all). (Finding of Fact 8.)
As to representative claim 3, we have found that Schreiber teaches a
browser application for receiving HTML tags pertaining to protected
images. (Findings of Fact 10 and 11.)
As to representative claim 45, we find that Schreiber teaches a
browser application in a server that has e-mail capabilities. (See col. 25, ll.
61-63 and figure 15.)
Appellants did not offer separate arguments against the rejection of
claims 4, 6, 8 through 18, 20, 22 through 44, and 46 through 55. Therefore,
they fall together with representative claims 1 through 3, and 45. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004.)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013