Appeal No. 2003-0100
Application No. 09/298,663
such a combination would have resulted in “enhanced capability”
or that it would have had any effect in “increasing the speed and
performance of the system,” as contended by the examiner. Nor is
there any indication that the artisan would have had any reason
to believe that such advantages would be achieved by the
combination made by the examiner.
Further, even if Lawlor can be considered to teach the
issuance of tokens for access data, in queues, there would appear
to be no reason to issue such tokens in Wobber where the
principal is already authenticated for particular access types to
particular objects by means of the ACL of each object.
In further explaining the rejection in the response section
of the answer, at page 9, the examiner employs exactly the same
unsupported rationale as was given when making the rejection and
fails to adequately respond to the reasonable points made by
appellants. In short, the examiner has failed to convincingly
show that there would have been some reasonable rationale for
modifying Wobber to provide for selectively issuing data class
and access authorizations, or tickets authorizing at least one
type of data access, to principals in response to requests for
such data access.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007