Appeal No. 94-3999
Application 08/083,863
In response to the examiner’s position that the claims are anticipated by each of the prior art references,
appellants state that each reference teaches an express challenge of some type which makes it clear that
continued access to the system by a user requires a response. The only argument made by appellants is
to the effect that in contrast, the object of the present invention is to provide a method for controlling
access to a computer system in a manner which does not utilize an express password scheme similar to
those in the references, and that appellants’ method is expressly brought out in the claims by calling for
a user to perform a “finite ordered series of substantive activities”.
It is considered that appellants have not specifically addressed the examiner’s position in the
rejection, and we are persuaded by that position. Appellants have made much of the fact that the
references teach password schemes. This is not relevant to the rejection. The issue is whether the
references teach a finite ordered series of substantive activities as defined by appellants for use in
accessing computer systems. The examiner is correct that in accessing computer systems such as
taught in the references, a user performs a finite ordered series of substantive activities to access a
particular resource, such as the memory where a particular file is stored. Activities such as invocation
of a selected software application, manipulation of a selected file and graphical manipulation of icons on
a screen by a computer operator to access a particular resource are at least as old as personal
computers themselves.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007