Appeal 2006-2937
Application 09/840,188
With respect to dependent claim 32, Appellant argues that
Abraham is inconclusive whether the key in encrypted form is stored
with the table or not (Br. 13). Here the Examiner merely relies upon
Abraham to teach that the key is in encrypted format and the base
combination teaches and fairly suggests that the key is stored outside
the table. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, and we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 32 over
Thomson, Denning, and Abraham and the dependent claims which
Appellant has elected to group therewith on page 13 of the Brief.
With respect to dependent claim 44, Appellant relies upon the
arguments made with respect to dependent claim 32 which we did not
find persuasive. Therefore, Appellant's argument is not persuasive,
and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 44
over Thomson, Denning, and Abraham and the dependent claims
which Appellant has elected to group therewith on page 14 of the
Brief.
With respect to dependent claim 51, Appellant relies upon the
arguments made with respect to dependent claim 32 which we did not
find persuasive. Therefore, Appellant's argument is not persuasive,
and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 51
over Thomson, Denning, and Abraham and the dependent claims
which Appellant has elected to group therewith on page 14 of the
Brief.
With respect to dependent claim 44, Appellant relies upon the
arguments made with respect to dependent claim 32 which we did not
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013