Appeal No. 2003-0325
Application No. 08/775,077 Page 8
authenticator indicates that the information segment is
authentic, as required by claim 1. In an attempt to meet
independent claims 1 and 8, the examiner appears to have adopted
an interpretation of Loucks in which the examiner considers
service 514 of Loucks to be the information object. However,
this interpretation fails because in Loucks, the reply to the
authentication determination is sent to the requestor, and
permits the requestor to have access to service 514. In
addition, service 514 does not include an information segment to
be authenticated. The authentication process provides the
requestor with access to the service. Since the service 514 does
not request authentication, and does not include an information
segment to be accessed upon successful authentication, Loucks
does not anticipate claims 1 or 8. From all of the above, we
find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of anticipation of claims 1 and 8. The rejection of claims 1, 5,
14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is therefore reversed.
In addition, we reverse the rejection of claims 2-4, 6-8, 15
and 17 because the examiner has not established the obviousness
of independent claims 1 and 8 over Loucks, and has not
established that the secondary references of Haber and Graziano
make up for the basic deficiencies of Loucks. Accordingly, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007