Appeal No. 1999-0876
Application No. 08/693,494
dependents, claims 4 through 10, 13 through 16, and 18 through
20.
Next the examiner rejects claims 1, 11, 12, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Connolly. Appellants
contend (Brief, page 4) that Connolly does not disclose
"generating an authentication message . . . having a cordless
base station authentication result," as recited in independent
claims 1 and 12. The examiner does not reply to this
argument. We agree with appellants. Connolly is directed to
authenticating the portable handset, not the base station.
Therefore, the authentication result is not a cordless base
station result, but, rather, a portable handset result. In
addition, Connolly does not send a connect message to the base
station, as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 12, but,
rather, sends an authentication request message to the handset
through the base station. Consequently, Connolly fails to
meet each and every limitation of claims 1, 11, and 12, so we
cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 11, and
12 over Connolly.
In addition, appellants argue (Brief, page 5) that
Connolly "discloses transmitting a random number generated at
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007