Appeal No. 2002-2126
Application 08/931,187
substitute appeal brief (Paper No. 26) (pages referred to as
"Br__") and the reply brief (Paper No. 29) (pages referred to as
"RBr__") for a statement of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12, 13, and 15-34
The independent claims define an apparatus, system, or
method for secure communications between a server and a remote
client, in which the server selects a security algorithm from a
plurality of security algorithms and communicates the selected
security algorithm to the client (Br10-12). Independent
claims 17, 28, 29, and 31 recite that the selection is random.
Independent claims 17, 29, and 31-34 recite linking or potential
linking of the selected security algorithm to the client
application program and/or the server process.
Borza discloses that prior art solutions to secure
communications on the Internet include a known encryption
algorithm such as a public key/private key system (col. 1,
lines 31-46) as described in connection with Fig. 2 (col. 4,
line 51 to col. 5, line 12). Borza notes (col. 5, lines 13-20):
It is evident to those of skill in the art that
implementation of security according to the prior art
requires standardisation of encryption algorithms and
processes, either through the use of software from the same
vendor or through the use of a standard encryption
algorithm. There are disadvantages to each of these
approaches in that using a common vendor reduces flexibility
and maintainability, while using a standard encryption
algorithm reduces security.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007