Appeal No. 2003-1225
Application No. 09/223,765
Claim 4 recites a request supervisor running as a thread for processing user
requests without a vault access certificate. Carroll describes processing transmissions
from uncertified users (e.g., col. 6, ll. 15-16). The element of Carroll’s system that
processes user requests not having a vault access certificate is “initialized,” “started,”
“awakened,” “began,” or “launched” by some other element. That Carroll does not call
the launching element “vsSupervisor Initialize” is of no consequence.
We agree with appellants, however, that the reference does not disclose subject
matter required by instant claims 7 and 8. The rejection relies on material in columns 2
and 3 of Carroll for mapping a vault access certificate into a user Id. Carroll describes
mapping a vault certificate to a personal vault using the supervisor private key (col. 2, ll.
61-67), but not mapping a vault access certificate into a user Id. Carroll describes
generating keys that are associated with a particular user with a unique password (col.
3, ll. 22-33), but not generating a vault password for a user Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Section 102 rejection of claims 1-4, but
not the rejection of claims 7 and 8.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Carroll
is affirmed. The rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Carroll is reversed.
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 7, and 8 is thus affirmed-in-part.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007