Appeal No. 2006-0655
Application 09/459,287
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer as
embellished upon here, we sustain the rejection of all claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
From our review of appellants’ brief, it appears that
appellants are arguing only in effect independent claim 1 as
representative of the other independent claims 15 and 21 as well
as the other claims set forth in the first stated rejection.
Separate arguments are presented as to claim 4, which we treat
separately below, and no arguments are presented to us as to the
third stated rejection of claims 13, 20 and 22.
We turn first to the first stated rejection which encompass
each of the independent claims 1, 15 and 21 on appeal with claim
1 as representative of each of them as being obvious over
Steinberg in view of Traw. We sustain this rejection for the
reasons set forth by the examiner as well as our consideration of
Steinberg leads us to conclude that this reference alone would
have rendered obvious to the artisan the subject matter of
representative claim 1 on appeal.
Initially, we agree with the examiner’s reasoning of
combinability of the teachings Steinberg and Traw as set forth at
pages 3 and 4 of the answer. To the extent Steinberg may be
fairly characterized as the examiner does, as not disclosing a
first and second device authentication between an input device
and a memory device and separately between a memory device and a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007