Appeal 2007-0244
Application 09/777,500
With respect to dependent claims 23, 35, and 47, Appellants elected to
group these claims with dependent claim 10 in the Brief and now appear to
present separate argument. We group these claims as Appellants previously
elected in the principal Brief and these arguments is deemed waived. (See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii)).
Appellants additionally argue that the dependent claims grouped with
claim 18 incorporate additional limitations not taught by claims 9, 33, or 45
or by the cited references (Reply Br. 9). We find no relevance of a
comparison of dependent claims to the independent claims with respect to a
comparison of the prior art. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive.
Appellants argue that Appellants have been unable to locate any
request for decryption key from a meta data database (Reply Br. 9). We find
that Wiser discloses the key is transmitted in encrypted form to the client
with the content. Therefore we agree with Appellants that Wiser does not
expressly teach the request and transmission of the decryption key. But we
do find it implicit in this teaching of direct transmission of the key with the
content. We find that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the relevant art at the time of the invention to be an obvious prior art
variation of request and reply for the decryption key. We find that it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to use
this slower yet more secure method if higher security and separation of the
decryption key and content were desired. Appellants' argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of claim 18 and those grouped
therewith.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013