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