Appeal No. 2003-1410
Application 09/272,056
examiner’s positions do not, in our view, address the principal
arguments raised by appellant as to each claim argued.
For example, appellant’s arguments at pages 9
through 12 of the principal Brief on appeal persuasively assert
that Sixtus does not teach the claimed authentication step of
claim 1 on appeal. The reasoning advanced by appellant here is
persuasive as to each independent claim on appeal because, as
appellant points out, Sixtus appears to go to great lengths to
point out the shortcomings of encryption schemes of the prior
art and indicates specifically that Sixtus chooses not to use
an encryption scheme of his own in his own invention. Column 3,
lines 15-18, states that it is an “object of the present
invention to provide such a system that does not rely on
encryption for transmittal of data over the Internet as part of
the transaction approval process.” This is consistent with the
general statements made at column 11.
The examiner has avoided any discussion in the
statement of the rejection and responsive arguments portion of
the Answer regarding this claimed feature and the fact that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007