Appeal No. 2000-1360
Application No. 08/632,251
clients 107-109 and proxy server 112 do not have independently
specified access rights to the host resources because Baker’s
network is a public network which presumes access rights.
Therefore, Baker does not teach determining the access rights
of a server to a host resource independently of a client for
which it is acting, nor does it teach conditioning client
access to that resource based upon the combined access rights
of the client and server, depending on the authenticated
status of the client.
Moreover, we agree with appellants that it is the
untrustworthiness of the server that is at issue in
appellants’ invention. Therefore, it would be absurd, in the
instant claimed invention, for the server to be performing the
authenticating and access control steps, as it apparently does
in Baker. As stated
by appellants, at page 9 of the brief, the better analogy
would be if the internet sites 101-105 in Baker determined the
authenticated status of the users 107-109 and granted access
to unauthenticated users only if the proxy server 12 were also
authorized to access the Internet resources. But, since Baker
does not operate in this manner because the network therein is
7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007