Appeal No. 2006-0775
Application No. 09/356,940
of a plurality of indicia prior to generating the passwords that are then associated with the indicia
all at once and in sequence, whereas the originally filed disclosure “describes a process of storing
a single indicia, generating a single password, and then associating that single password with that
indicia.” The examiner concludes (answer, pages 4 and 5) “[w]hile, according to the original
disclosure, the process can be repeated for additional indicia one at a time (i.e., in series; refer to
specification page 7, top paragraph), the original disclosure does not support associating plural
passwords with plural indicia all at once (i.e., in parallel).”
We agree with the examiner’s position. The claims as drafted clearly state that a
“plurality of indicia” is stored in the data storage source prior to the generation of the plurality of
passwords, whereas the originally filed disclosure specifically discloses that a single indicia is
stored, and then an associated password is generated (specification, page 7; Figure 4). After all
of the indicia are stored, and all of the passwords are generated, then “each” of the plurality of
passwords in the claims on appeal is uniquely associated with a respective “one” of the plurality
of indicia in sequence. Thus, the lack of written description rejection is sustained because the
originally filed disclosure does not provide support for claims 33 through 52 on appeal.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 45 through 48 and 53 based upon the
teachings of McIntosh and either He or Noll, appellants and the examiner agree that McIntosh
does not disclose “password circuitry comprising a random number generator for randomly
generating a plurality of passwords” (answer, page 7; brief, pages 5 and 6; reply brief, page 4).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007