Appeal No. 1998-2986
Application No. 08/344,390
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 20.
Claim 13, which appears to be the broadest claim,
requires receiving plural registration notifications for a
particular mobile user and determining from the times of
creating the registration notifications whether cloning fraud
has occurred. As admitted by the examiner (Answer, page 4),
Cooper does not disclose that registration notifications are
used to determine the existence of cloning fraud. Cooper,
rather, compares the time of a call's origination with the
time of a previous call's origination. The examiner,
nonetheless, asserts (Answer, page 4) that "it is well known
in the art to utilize registration notifications for
authentication and fraud purposes."
The examiner cites Teare as evidence to support his
statement that registration notifications have been used for
authentication. In particular, the examiner contends (Answer,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007