Appeal 2006-2937
Application 09/840,188
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 69, 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 69
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 82, Appellant relies upon the
arguments made with respect to dependent claim 32, which was
grouped with independent claim 18, which we did not find persuasive.
Therefore, Appellant's argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 82 over Thomson,
Denning, and Abraham.
With respect to dependent claim 23, Appellant reiterates the
language of the claim and maintains that Gaskells fails to teach using
a smart card for a proper subset rather than accessing the entire
system. Here, we agree with the Examiner that the use of smart cards
was well known as evidenced by Gaskell and that in the combination
of Thomson and Denning, it would have been obvious to one skilled
in the art at the time of the invention to store the key for cryptographic
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013