Appeal No. 1999-0876
Application No. 08/693,494
4 and 13 recite "transmitting an authentication request from
said cordless base station to said authorization equipment"
and claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 recite "generating an
authentication result," neither of which is taught by
Connolly. The examiner fails to respond to this argument, and
thus provides no guidance.
In Connolly (column 19, lines 23-28), the base station
requests authentication from the public switched telephone
network, not the service control point (which the examiner
points to as the authorization equipment). Further, the
service control point (or the authorization equipment) does
not generate any authentication result. Therefore, Connolly
fails to disclose each and every element of claims 4, 6, 7,
13, 15, and 16, and the examiner has provided no motivation
for modifying Connolly to include the limitations found
lacking from the reference. Accordingly, the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, so we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 4, 6, 7, 13, 15, and
16.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 14, and 18 through 20 do include the
limitation of a random number generated at the cordless base
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007