Appeal No. 2003-0072
Application No. 09/032,407
financial resources accessible to the first party through the
second party...,” the examiner cites various figures and column
4, lines 30-45, column 23, lines 45-52, column 24, lines 13-19,
column 31, lines 13-21, and column 32, lines 19-21, of Pare.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
add the modifications of Pare to the method of Ginter “because
such modifications would have provided a system that would have
provided ‘financial services system that is highly resistant to
fraudulent account accesses by unauthorized people’” (answer-page
8, referring to Pare’s column 6, lines 37-39).
We have carefully reviewed the examiner’s rejection and
rationale therefor and conclude that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
instant claimed subject matter.
From the portions of the references to which the examiner
alludes, it appears that the examiner has merely referenced words
which sound similar to certain terms within the instant claims
but which have no bearing on the instant claimed invention. For
example, instant claim 1 calls for a “commercial relationship
certificate.” Claim 20 calls it a “certificate...assuring an
authenticity of the first party” and produced by “the combination
of the public key and the unique reference being digitally signed
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007