Appeal No. 2006-3330
Application No. 09/922,196
illustrates a web page form 100 filled in automatically by selecting the ‘fill in’ button”
(paragraph 0027). A menu of user names with each user’s name corresponding to a respective
“autofill profile” is provided for in Pennell, and the user is allowed to select his or her name
from the pull-down menu of names 403 so that the “autofill profile” corresponding to the
selected name is used to provide information to the form 100 (Figures 5 and 7; paragraph 0029).
Appellant’s arguments throughout the briefs to the contrary notwithstanding, claim 1 on
appeal does not preclude the use of the pop up window 401 to aid in the filling in of form 100.
Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The anticipation rejection of
claims 2 through 4, 9 through 12, 14 and 24 through 26 is sustained because appellant has not
presented any patentability arguments for these claims apart from the arguments presented for
claim 1.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 5 through 8, 13, 15, 16 and 27, we
agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, page 4) that a PIN is synonymous with a password
when used in the manner described by both Pennell (paragraphs 0032 and 0033) and Kikinis
(column 4, lines 32 through 37) to gain access to stored encrypted data. We additionally agree
with the examiner’s finding (answer, page 4) that it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan “to have required the use of a PIN to access the protected, encrypted information in order
to authenticate the proper user . . . .” In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 5 through
8, 13, 15, 16 and 27 is sustained.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007