Appeal No. 2003-0072
Application No. 09/032,407
Since Ginter is interested in only secure networks, why would the
artisan believe it necessary to provide an algorithm for digital
signatures that cannot be used for encryption in Gitner?
The examiner combines Pare with 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). Other than hindsight, it is not clear what would have led
the artisan to look to Pare for an index to financial resources
accessible to the first party through the second party so as to
add this feature to Ginter.
Further, while Rosen 518 may contain a disclosure of an
“Issuer Certificate,” it is not at all clear that such a
certificate is equivalent to the claimed “commercial relationship
certificate” that is digitally signed by a second party and
includes a certified identifier. Moreover, it is this commercial
relationship certificate which must include the “index to the
financial resources accessible to the first party through the
second party.” Still further, as claimed, neither the commercial
relationship certificate nor said index is encrypted or secret.
The examiner has not made out a convincing case, in our view, as
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007