Appeal No. 2005-1540
Application No. 09/887,626
(Answer, page 5) that it is not clear from the combination if the
verification code is the same as history data. The examiner
relies on Hunter, stating that it would have been obvious “to
have encrypted the history data of Glorioso as disclosed in
Hunter in order to provider verification information that is
secure, difficult to modify, counterfeit or tamper with." The
examiner believes that the encryption of Hunter “corresponds to
applicant’s ‘not the same as.’”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 5) that Glorioso fails to
teach or disclose "memory being programmed with verification
instructions to generate a verification code to be used by a user
to manually verify whether the request was followed."
Specifically, appellants first contend that the verifying in
Glorioso is not at the user's location, as recited in the claims,
but, rather, is at the energy provider. We agree. The portion
of Glorioso referenced by the examiner (Answer, page 4) discloses
that the energy provider's computer system includes software that
includes code for verifying that an action has taken place.
There is no suggestion in Glorioso that a code is generated at
the user's processor for employment by the user.
Second, appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that Glorioso fails
to disclose a verification code. Appellants contend (Brief,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007