Appeal No. 2003-1729 Page 7
Application No. 09/229,733
We are uncertain to which element of the reference the examiner equates the
claimed "profile token." According to the appellants, "[t]he Examiner appears to regard
information in the smart card as the 'token'." (Appeal Br. at 9.) If so, the examiner is
likely referring to the "user information stored on the smart card," col. 3, ll. 39-40, that
the server retrieves. We are unpersuaded, however, that the server retrieves the user
information in response to successful authentication of a user. To the contrary, the
server retrieves the user information to employ the information to authenticate the user.
Id. at ll. 41-45.
The absence of receiving a profile token in response to successful authentication
of a user negates anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of
claim 1; of claims 3, 5-7, 10, and 12, which depend therefrom; of claim 14; of claims 15,
17-19, and 21, which depend therefrom; of claim 23; and of claims 25 and 29, which
depend therefrom.
3. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007