Appeal No. 2006-2189
Application No. 09/843,403
OPINION
At the outset, we note that in accordance with appellants’ statement, at page 3 of the
brief, all claims will stand or fall together. Accordingly, we will focus on independent claim
1.
The examiner applies Doyle to claim 1 at pages 3-4 of the answer, to which we refer
for the examiner’s reasoning.
Appellants argue only that Doyle does not disclose or suggest generation of the
access permissions in a form independently usable for the service provider, as in the last lines
of independent claims 1 and 15. Appellants contend that while Doyle requires distinct
configuration and authentication for each host application, the instant claimed invention does
not.
Appellants explain that in Doyle, when the host receives information about a selected
host application, the host application provides the information and a bind request 307 is sent
from the host to the client. The client responds with a bind response 309 and the host
application then sends a request to the client for its certificate 311. The client’s response is
to create a security packet and to send the security packet to the host 313 for authentication.
The host application then forwards the client’s certificate to a host access control 315. Once
authenticated, the host access control returns a response to the host application 317. At that
point, logon is complete and application data begins to flow 319 between the client and the
host application (brief-pages 5-6, citing column 5, line 67, through column 6, line 14, of
Doyle). Therefore, appellants conclude that Doyle requires both the client and the host
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007