Appeal No. 2000-1360
Application No. 08/632,251
public, there is no teaching of the instant claimed subject
matter nor is there any suggestion in Baker that the proxy
server in Baker presents any security problem. Rather, Baker
is interested in restricting access to certain sites by
particular users and the determination of whether those users
are authenticated and able to gain access to the sites is made
before forwarding any request from a client to a server. The
determination is not made “upon receiving a request...from a
server,” as claimed.
Teper clearly does not provide for this deficiency in
Baker and the examiner does not rely on Teper for this
feature. Since the combination of references does not reach
the claimed limitation regarding the independently specified
access rights of the client and the server, we do not reach
the question of whether Teper provides a proper teaching of
the creating of “a client security context” for combining with
Baker.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 under
35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007