Appeal No. 2003-1410
Application 09/272,056
Finally, that the examiner’s assertion at page 8 of the
Answer that claim 38 is identical to the features recited in
representative claim 1 on appeal is misplaced is noted again.
Appellant’s arguments at pages 17 through 21 of the principal
Brief on appeal are persuasive to justify the reversal of the
rejection of this claim. We agree with appellant’s view
expressed at page 19 of this Brief that Sixtus does not disclose
or suggest that the vendors maintain a second directory software
storing a master list controlled and periodically updated by the
first directory software where the master list includes a
priority of IDs and the corresponding encrypted passwords and an
identification of the financial institution. Correspondingly,
Sixtus does not teach that a bank or financial institution
periodically updates any list that may be maintained by a vendor
in his system.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007