Appeal No. 2004-1156
Application No. 09/071,594
(See brief at page 12.) Here, we find no such limitation as to a policy object in
independent claim 37. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellants present
specific arguments to independent claim 23 at page 13 of the brief, but only mention
independent claim 37 once on page 12 of the brief without a specific argument thereto.
Finding no specific argument thereto and not finding a persuasive argument with
respect to independent claim 1, which was convincing as to the limitations of
independent claim 37, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 37
and dependent claims 38 and 39 which appellants elected not to specifically argue.
With respect to dependent claims 20 and 22, we find that the examiner has not
relied upon the teachings of the additional three references recited in the statement of
the rejection concerning the concept of verifying a digital signature. Therefore, we find
no evidence in the rejection concerning digital signatures and no prima facie case of
obviousness thereto. Therefore, we additionally reverse the rejection of dependent
claims 20 and 22 for this reason.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed , and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 37-39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007