Appeal No. 2002-2126
Application 08/931,187
Dependent claims 7, 8, and 11
Appellant argues that the virtual machine configured to
transform the security algorithm into program code or a routine
accessible by the client application program in claims 7, 8,
and 11 is not taught by Borza (Br21-22).
Borza discloses that the method of transmitting security
processes "relies on the cross platform compatibility built into
the JAVA programming language" (col. 8, lines 45-46) and that the
client "provided with a JAVA interpreter is capable of executing
the security process" (col. 8, lines 50-51). It was well known
that a JAVA interpreter is a JAVA Virtual Machine. The
interpreter transforms the data stream into an executable
program. Appellant has not shown error in the rejection. The
rejection of claims 7, 8, and 11 is sustained.
Dependent claim 14
Appellant argues that Borza does not disclose "selecting the
security algorithm based on at least one of: the geographic
location, IP address, and security level of the client" in
claim 14. It is argued that since there is no disclosure of any
selected security algorithm anywhere in Borza, no selection of
security algorithm can be based on the three criteria (Br22-23).
Borza discloses that a "security process" transmitted to the
client can be an encryption algorithm (col. 5, lines 65-67).
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007