Appeal No. 2001-1507
Application No. 08/972,129
supplemental brief at page 5-9.) We agree with appellants. From our review of the
teachings of Zhang, we find that Zhang teaches the authentication of the downloaded
Applets which have an embedded signature, but we do not find that the embedded
signature is compared to a stored signature. Zhang discloses the comparison of a
decrypted data value with a locally generated hash result. Appellants argue that the
examiner’s rejection is based upon conclusions by the examiner and not upon evidence
and therefore, based upon hindsight. (See brief at pages 9-10.) We do not find that
the portions of Zhang relied upon by the examiner at pages 4-5 of the answer support
the examiner’s position, and we agree with appellants.
Appellants argue that the examiner’s reliance on the teachings of Hsieh are
misplaced. (See brief at page 10 et seq.) We agree with appellants and find that Hsieh
teaches merely a comparison between an actual compiling or interpreter-based JAVA
VM and a translation using Native Language Translation (NET) compiler. Hsieh also
discloses that the verifier determines whether or not the native code copies of the byte
code files exist in the disk cache and if found are used for execution and if not found
then the code is generated and a copy stored for future use. (See Hsieh at page 69,
col. 2.) While Hsieh discloses the translation or compiling of the codes, we do not find
that this is determined as a result of a signature comparison as recited in the language
of independent claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007