Appeal No. 94-3999
Application 08/083,863
claim 22 are “means of storing”, “access means for allowing access” and “access control means for
permitting said selected user to access said particular resource”. Dependent claims 23 and 24 add
“means for automatically executing” and “means for automatically invoking”, respectively. The
examiner has not specifically addressed any of these clauses to show how it renders one or more of the
claims ambiguous. Nor do we find ambiguity in any of the clauses or in any of the other language in
these claims when read in light of appellants’ disclosure. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236
(CCPA 1971).
The first step of sole independent method claim 18 is “specifying”. The language setting forth
this step includes the term “activities which may be performed” which the examiner has criticized. The
language “which may be performed” modifies “activities”, not the method step of “specifying”. Thus,
“specifying a finite ordered series of substantive activities” is a positive limitation of claim 18 and we find
no merit to the examiner’s position to the effect that claims 18-21 are indefinite or ambiguous because
this step is not positively set forth.
Although the claim language “finite ordered series of substantive activities” is not defined in the
claims as noted by the examiner, this language is defined in appellants’ specification. Substantive
activities are defined at page 8, lines 14-22 of appellants’ specification as activities having substantive
effect within a computer system or application rather than the mere entry of an arbitrary alphanumeric
key sequence, such as is typically used in a password process. Examples of substantive activities are
given as invocation of a particular application, the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007