Appeal No.2003-0446 Application No.09/127767 because it would omit message (1), i.e., it would omit the first challenge sent and would omit performing a keyed cryptographic function on both the count value and the first challenge as required by claim 12. This argument, however, is not supported because Menezes clearly shows protocol SKID3 as used for a one- pass authentication where step (1) is required to complete the authentication process (Menezes, page 402). Further, even if using a count value instead of a random number eliminates one message, that message is connected to the random number that was interchanged with the count value, which in this case is the random number present in step (2) and not the one present in step (1). Menezes clearly discloses in step (2) on page 402 that the keyed cryptographic function uses the first challenge. Accordingly, we find appellant's arguments unpersuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of claims 12, 14, 15, and 18-20. Group II: Claims 4, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 17. Appellant's argument (Brief, pages 17-19) focuses on the fact that the Examiner failed to interpret the words "first key" and a "second key" according to their plain meaning, namely, that there are two separate keys. Also, Appellant asserts that the Examiner failed to interpret the meaning of the claim altogether. However, on page 401 Menezes clearly discloses that in 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007