Appeal No. 2006-0655
Application 09/459,287
that we sustain the rejection set forth by the examiner, it
appears that Steinberg does in fact teach a pure authentication
approach as set forth per se in independent claim 1 on appeal.
Among the various teachings in Steinberg, they include the
ability to actually encrypt the image data, which appears alone
to encompass the broadly defined authentication features of claim
1 on appeal, but as well a separate capability of creation of an
authentication file. This is noted by the examiner in the first
paragraph at the top of column 2; we note that it is also
repeated at this column at lines 40 through 43. Figures 6 and 7
of Steinberg relate to secured data transfers through the
creation of authentication data and/or file structures with
respect to a storage device itself as well as the host computer.
The discussion of Figures 6 and 7 at column 6, line 48 through at
least column 7, line 2 appears to be consistent with appellants’
disclosed approach for pure authentication without encrypting the
image data per se, and its corresponding decryption as well.
Lastly, we turn to the separate rejection of dependent claim
4 which recites that the digital data of independent claim 1 is
transferred as authenticated data if the first and second device
authentications are successful, whereas this digital data is
transferred as ordinary data if the first and second device
authentications are not successful. In other words, if the first
and second device authentications are not successful, the digital
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007