Appeal No. 2006-0252 6
Application No. 09/755,564
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
3. The portions of Denker argued by appellants relate to the
TCP2E protocol. As noted above, we find that the TCP2B protocol
of Denker meets the invention of claim 1. Note that equations 1
and 2 of Denker use the term “random secret” in calculating the
encoded value. We find that Denker clearly retains the keys for
evaluating the random secrets used in the exchanged messages of
Denker.
With respect to dependent claim 4, appellants argue that
Denker fails to show the step of claim 4. Specifically,
appellants argue that the portions of Denker cited by the
examiner do not show picking a category index as claimed [brief,
pages 17-18]. The examiner responds that the encoded value in
Denker includes various parameters including connection
parameters [answer, page 11].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
4. Appellants have failed to explain why the connection
parameters identified by the examiner in Denker do not fall
within a category index as broadly recited in claim 4. The mere
assertion that an element is not taught within a reference
without any explanation or analysis does not rebut a persuasive
finding that the element is present.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007