Appeal No. 96-2894
Application 08/742,974
during the 1980's. Passwords were/are used to prevent
unauthorized use of computer facilities, and the
Examiner will happily execute an Affidavit to such
effect if deemed necessary a [sic] applicant.
Appellants argue (Br14-15):
[P]resuming arguendo that knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would
include mere verification or authorization, this does
not disclose or suggest verifying prior authorization
of the student for executing the courseware. The
allegations in the Office Action appear to simplify the
language of the claims, and the Applicants remind the
Honorable Board that all of the claimed limitations
must be met by teaching of the prior art in order to
sustain a rejection under 35 USC § 103.
Appellants further argue that the examiner has failed to
provide any evidence for the method step of verifying prior
authorizations of the student for executing the courseware
and "[t]he Applicants remind the Honorable Board that the
Examiner's mere offer to supply an affidavit does not have
the same effect as an actual affidavit being submitted"
(Br15).
We interpret appellants' arguments in the best possible
light as not contesting the examiner's taking official
notice of the fact that verifying a password as
authorization for logging onto a computer was well known in
the prior art, but as arguing that such fact does not meet
- 19 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007