Appeal Number: 2006-2502
Application Number: 09/768,434
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Challener.
Appellants repeat the same argument regarding the definition of a service tag
they made in claim 1, supra., (Br. 14), which is unpersuasive for the same reasons
we stated in the arguments regarding claim 1. With regard to claim 8, the
appellants argue that Challener fails to describe the use of a second server to
validate the tag. (Br. 14). The examiner took official notice that it is notoriously
well known to rely on a separate authentication server in login procedures. The
appellants did not traverse this. (Answer 10-11). We also take notice of the
notoriety of this practice and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know
of its use for both additional security and efficiency in precluding the need for
redundant databases across all the servers that a user might access, were the
authorization process not localized to a separate server. Therefore, we find the
appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive.
The appellants next simply list the additional limitations of claims 2, 3, 9, 10
and 20 and allege their absence from Challener. We note that according to 37
C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii), a statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. In any
event, the examiner has shown where these limitations are taught by the references
(Answer at p. 5-7). Although Challener’s check for invalid tags in Fig. 7 and
accompanying text is not strictly the invalidating of a tag as in claims 2, 10 and 20,
Challener’s discussion of checking whether a tag is valid would have suggested to
a person of ordinary skill in the art the need to occasionally flag a tag as no longer
valid. Such a marking as invalid is notoriously well known in the user security arts
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013