Appeal No. 2006-0655
Application 09/459,287
data of claim 1, such as the disclosed image data, is transferred
as ordinary or plaintext data.
As noted by the examiner at page 7 of the answer, the noted
disclosed authentication flag which is respectively set or not
set as to authenticated or unauthenticated ordinary data is not
recited in the disclosed specifics in dependent claim 4. Many of
the positions set forth by appellants at pages 7 and 8 go well
beyond the actual language of dependent claim 4 to argue
disclosed but unclaimed features.
Appellants’ apparent most significant argument is at page 8
of the brief where it is urged that Altschuler always transitions
from an insecure mode of communication to a secure mode of
communication, so that at the end of the secure call setup
procedure, the parties are communicating either securely or not
at all. This may be one way of interpreting the teaching value
of Altschuler, particular the showing in Figure 5 as argued by
the examiner. On the other hand, and most significantly, the
examiner has noted column 6, lines 20 through 27 in the statement
of the rejection as well as the arguments of the examiner at page
8 of the answer. Although the showing in Figure 5 may be
construed as appellants have argued, the noted discussion at
column 6 clearly indicates that if a secure mode of communication
is not perfected, the plaintext mode will be continued in
operation, at least until a secure mode may be established.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007