Ex parte FISCHER - Page 18




          Appeal No. 1997-3178                                                        
          Application 08/464,069                                                      

          claim 25 nor claim 32 recites doing anything with the                       
          recovered secret digital information, such as actually                      
          sending it to the user; however, the LA in Kaufman encrypts                 
          {U}  with key K and send it to the user who can recover U.                  
             H1                                                                       
          The method of claim 32 is anticipated for the same reasons                  
          as claim 25.  The "name" N in Kaufman is one of the                         
          enumerated pieces of identifying information recited in                     
          claims 29 and 36.  The anticipation rejection of claims 25,                 
          29, 32, and 36 over Kaufman is sustained.                                   
               Appellant argues (Br18):  "In general, there is no                     
          recognition in Kaufman that a legitimate user may have                      
          forgotten his password.  Nor is there any provision in                      
          Kaufman to permit a legitimate user to obtain that password                 
          from a trustee."  However, claims 25 and 32 are not limited                 
          to the lost password problem.  The "secret digital                          
          information" can be the encrypted quantity {U} , the                        
                                                        H1                            
          encrypted private key U, in Kaufman.  The "secret encrypted                 
          digital information" is {{U} , H2}H1    LA-PUB.  Thus, the argument                 
          is not persuasive.                                                          
               Appellant argues (Br18):  "Kaufman fails to disclose a                 
          trustee.  Nor does Kaufman disclose a trustee that uses the                 

                                       - 18 -                                         





Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007