Appeal No. 2006-0775
Application No. 09/356,940
Claims 33 through 36 and 38 through 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McIntosh in view of He and Ramachandran.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McIntosh
in view of He, Ramachandran and Bang.
Claims 42 through 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
McIntosh in view of He, Ramachandran and Guthrie.
Reference is made to the July 9, 2003 Office Action, the answer and the briefs for the
respective positions of the examiner and the appellants
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the lack of
written description rejection of claims 33 through 52, reverse the obviousness rejections of
claims 45 through 48 and 53, and sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 33 through 44,
49 through 52 and 54.
Turning first as we must to the lack of written description rejection, the appellants argue
(brief, page 14) “[t]he language in the claim clearly recites “each of said plurality of passwords
is uniquely associated with a respective one of said plurality of indicia,” and “[t]he only
reasonable interpretation of this language is that the claimed invention associates each password
with one indicia, and not all of the passwords with all of the indicia all at once.” The examiner is
of the opinion (answer, pages 4 and 5) that the scope of the claims on appeal covers the storage
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007