Appeal No. 2002-2126
Application 08/931,187
Dependent claim 6
Appellant argues that the limitations that "the server
communicates the selected security algorithm to the client as a
data stream, and wherein the the application program is
configured to transform the data stream into at least one
accessible routine" in claim 6 are "not disclosed anywhere in
Borza '167" (Br21). It is argued that column 8, line 65 to
column 9, line 48, cited by the examiner, is a pseudo-code
listing of a JAVA applet for performing biometric
characterization (Br21) and (Br21): "There is no disclosure
anywhere from Borza '167 of any selected security algorithm as
alleged by the Examiner. As a result, no selected security
algorithm can be communicated to [a] client in any form as
incorrectly alleged by the Examiner."
Borza discloses that a "security process" transmitted to the
client can be an encryption algorithm (col. 5, lines 65-67).
Borza discloses transmitting the security process, implemented in
the JAVA programming language, to the client where it is
deciphered and executed. Since the client computer is capable of
executing the transmitted security process in JAVA form, it is
necessarily configured to transform the data stream from the
network into an executable routine. Appellant has not shown
error in the rejection. The rejection of claim 6 is sustained.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007