Ex Parte Dahl - Page 12

                  Appeal   2006-2937                                                                                           
                  Application   09/840,188                                                                                     
                  cryptographic information and there is only one step of storing the                                          
                  information outside the table rather than two steps of storing which                                         
                  would arguable imply that they are different information.                                                    
                          Here, we find that Appellant’s arguments go well beyond the                                          
                  scope of the literal language in the claims, and we do not find any                                          
                  argument or citation to the specification which would further limit the                                      
                  broad interpretation given by the examiner.  We note that the two                                            
                  cryptographic informations are not necessarily different nor are they                                        
                  required to be cryptographic keys, they are only stored cryptographic                                        
                  information. Therefore, we accept the Examiner’s interpretation as                                           
                  reasonable in light of Appellant’s specification.                                                            
                          With respect to Appellant’s arguments with respect to                                                
                  inherency in Denning and the location of storage of data, we find as                                         
                  discussed above, that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the                                       
                  art at the time of the invention to either store the field keys or generate                                  
                  them as needed.  This would have been a consideration in the end use                                         
                  of the table and system as applied to a field of endeavor, which is not                                      
                  recited in the instant claims.  We find that in light of the teachings of                                    
                  Thomson to store the master outside the table, it would have been                                            
                  obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to                                            
                  similarly store the master and field keys outside the table for ease of                                      
                  access.  Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, and we                                           
                  will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 41 over                                           
                  Thomson and Denning and independent claim 79 and the dependent                                               
                  claims which Appellant has elected to group therewith on page 7 of                                           
                  the Brief.                                                                                                   

                                                              12                                                               

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013