Appeal No. 2002-0617
Application 08/942,743
network 2 via communication links 14 for processing the
transaction. Upon determining that the user is not an authorized
individual, the authentication system 10 may forward the data
indicating such to the requested service provider network 2
program over the communication link 14. See column 3, lines 8
through 15 of Kanevsky. We find no teaching or
suggestion of distribution of software products by Kanevsky, nor
do we find a teaching or suggestion of initial distribution of
the software in which a challenge means is embedded within it.
We find that Linsker does teach a zero-knowledge
identification protocol. However, we fail to find that the
general teaching of Linsker teaches or suggests the Appellants’
claimed invention of preventing unauthorized use of software by
providing a challenge means which has no access to private keying
material and wherein the challenge means is embedded in the
protected item of software. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 10 through 16, 18, 25, 37
and 41 through 46 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Kanevsky in view of Menezes. For the rejections of claims 5
through 8 and 40 relying additionally on Hellman, Davis and
Linsker, we find that the Examiner has relied only on Kanevsky
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007