Appeal No. 2000-1360
Application No. 08/632,251
upon receiving a request from a client for a service from
a server, creating a client security context for said client,
said client security context indicating whether said client is
an authenticated client that is authenticated to said host
system or an unauthenticated client that is not authenticated
to said host system;
upon receiving a request for a specified access to a host
resource from a server purporting to act on behalf of a
client:
determining whether said client is allowed said access to
said resource;
determining whether said client is an authenticated
client or an unauthenticated client;
if said client is an authenticated client, granting said
access to said host resource if said client is allowed said
access to said host resource; and
if said client is an unauthenticated client, determining
whether said server is allowed said access to said resource
independently of said client and granting said access to said
host resource if both said client and said server are
independently allowed said access to said host resource,
otherwise, refusing said access to said host resource.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Baker et al. (Baker) 5,678,041 Oct. 14, 1997
[filed Aug. 25, 1995]
Teper et al. (Teper) 5,815,665 Sep. 29, 1998
[filed Apr. 03, 1996]
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Baker in view of Teper.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007