Appeal No. 2006-0252 5
Application No. 09/755,564
the Initial Sequence number Receiver side [see term “client’s
initial sequence number” of equation 1]. Denker also discloses
that the server waits for an ACK message from the client and
determines whether the ACK message passes a mathematical or
cryptological test [column 8, line 61 to column 9, line 6]. One
formula for this test is shown in equation 2. This equation uses
the term “(client’s sequence numbermsg3040c-1).” The term client’s
sequence numbermsg3040c is the incremented value of the Initial
Sequence number and the “1" is subtracted in the equation to
account for this. Thus, the “minus 1" in equation 2 clearly
indicates that the Sequence number in the ACK message has been
incremented from the Initial Sequence number Receiver side.
Therefore, we disagree with appellants’ argument that the last
step of claim 1 is not taught or suggested by Denker.
With respect to dependent claim 3, appellants argue that
Denker fails to show the claimed four steps. Specifically,
appellants argue that the portions of Denker cited by the
examiner do not show the use of a key as claimed [brief, pages
15-17]. The examiner responds that the random number in Denker
is used in the calculation of the encoded value which is used in
the messages exchanged when establishing the connection [answer,
page 11].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007