Appeal No. 2006-2193
Application 09/751,823
May’s purpose is to allow transactions between initially
anonymous parties while still providing a way for them to negotiate
with the same power and security as initially non-anonymous parties
(col. 2, lines 1-50). As shown above, Kraft teaches an interest in
developing security trades with a remote client that may be initially
anonymous. May teaches that the reasons for anonymity are
numerous, but include the fact that without anonymity, certain parties
may not wish to deal with certain other parties (col. 2, lines 50-56),
and may even cancel the transaction before it is completed, indicating
a desire to ensure the maintenance of anonymity for some time, or
manipulate the price based on the party identity (col. 43, lines 43-50).
Thus, at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have added May’s anonymity handling to Kraft in order to
provide remote clients with assurance of non-preferential treatment
based on identity, while still allowing Kraft [sic Kraft’s] servers to
keep their security measures.
Thus, as argued by the examiner to the extent claimed, the entire
dialog between the client and the server and the host (to the extent these
elements are recited at all in any claim on appeal) is not required to be
anonymous. The examiner has identified compelling portions of Kraft and
May supporting the examiner’s reasoning of combinability and enhancement
of the security capabilities already taught in Kraft with those set forth in
May. Essentially, May identifies an additional type of security
consideration, that is, the identities of the actual counterparties or sending
and receiving parties between a client and a host, to add to the types
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007