Appeal No. 2003-1942 Page 10
Application No. 09/260,796
facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 3
and of claims 4, 5, and 7, which depend therefrom.
C. CLAIMS 9-11, 13 AND 15-17
Citing "[c]olumn 8, lines 60-67," (Examiner's Answer at 17), and "[c]olumn 11,
lines 55-67," (id.), the examiner asserts, "Carter teaches a group server obtaining a
private key and matched public key for each group. . . ." (Id.) The appellant argues,
"Carter teaches obtaining a public key and a private key only for each authorized user,
not each group." (Reply Br. at 5.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 9 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "at least one group
server connected to the network, each group server operable to (a) maintain at least
one group, each group comprising a list of client members allowed access to
information produced by any client member of the group, and (b) obtain a private key
and matched public key for each group. . . ." Accordingly, the limitations require
obtaining a public key and a matched private key for a group comprising more than one
client.
2. Anticipation and Obviousness Determinations
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007