Appeal No. 2002-2126
Application 08/931,187
randomly" (emphasis added) (col. 8, lines 66-62). Thus, Borza
discloses randomly selecting a security algorithm (the security
process which may be an encryption algorithm) from a plurality of
security algorithms. As shown in Fig. 4, the secure
communication is initiated by the client. The security process
is linked to the client application because "[a] client
computer 52 provided with a JAVA interpreter is capable of
executing the security processes" (col. 8, lines 50-51), which
appears to be the disclosed method in the specification, page 8.
It is inherent that if Borza sends an encryption algorithm as a
security process to the client, it must have a decryption
algorithm on the server to be able to decode the data. For these
reasons, we find the independent claims to be anticipated.
Appellant argues that column 5 to column 6 of Borza cited by
the examiner do not disclose the limitations of the independent
claims (Br14), that no selection of a security algorithm at the
server is required, nor is there any transmission of the selected
security algorithm from the server to the client computer (Br16),
and that "there is no disclosure anywhere from Borza [of the
limitations of the independent claims]" (Br19).
These arguments are not persuasive based on the findings
above. The rejection is based on anticipation and appellant is
responsible for reading the entire reference, not just the
portions expressly referred to by the examiner.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007