Appeal No. 2000-1360
Application No. 08/632,251
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with
appellants’ grouping of the claims, at page 4 of the brief,
and lack of separate arguments directed to the patentability
of separate claims, claims 1-12 will stand or fall together.
It is the examiner’s position that Baker discloses the
claimed subject matter but for the claimed “creating a client
security context for said client” upon receiving a request
from a client for a service from a server. The examiner
relies on Teper for a teaching of creating this “client
security context,” pointing to various portions of Teper,
including the abstract, Figures 1-3, column 3, lines 5-53,
column 7, lines 30-65, column 9, line 25 through column 10,
line 29, column 10, line 44 through column 11, line 33, and
column 20, lines 6-48.
The examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious to incorporate the teachings of Teper for creating a
client security context for each client with the method of
Baker for controlling server access to the host resource
because “it would decrease the client overhead and increase
4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007