Appeal 2007-1773
Application 10/107,776
Appellants have invented a method of providing access security for a
subject device based upon the identification of the device seeking access to
the subject device (Specification 8, 9 and 33 to 36).
Claim 29 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
29. A method for providing access security for a subject device, the
methods comprising:
monitoring signals;
detecting an attempt by an additional device to access the subject
device based upon the signals;
using the signals to determine an identity of the additional device;
determining if the additional device is authorized to access the subject
device based on the identity of the additional device and predetermined
access authority information; and
controlling access to the subject device by the additional device
responsive to determining that the additional device is authorized to access
the subject device.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Anderson US 6,115,819 Sep. 5, 2000
The Examiner rejected claims 29, 30, 32, 36, 37, and 39 to 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Anderson.
Appellants contend that Anderson does not determine if an additional
device is authorized to access the subject device based on the identity of the
additional device (Br. 9; Reply Br. 2). Appellants additionally contend that
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013