Ex Parte Patel - Page 3

                Appeal 2007-0246                                                                              
                Application 09/854,251                                                                        
                Bellare et al., “Keying Hash Functions for Message Authentication”,                           
                Preliminary Version: Advances in Cryptology – Crypto 96 Proceedings,                          
                Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1109, Springer-Verlag, (June                          
                1996), pp. 1-19.                                                                              

                                                REJECTION                                                     
                    Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, 16, and 19-21stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102                     
                as being anticipated by Bellare.                                                              
                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the                          
                Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make                       
                reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jun. 14, 2006) for the reasoning                   
                in support of the rejections, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Mar. 20, 2006)                  
                for the arguments thereagainst.                                                               
                                                 OPINION                                                      
                    In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful                            
                consideration to Appellant’s Specification and claims, to the applied prior art               
                reference, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the                   
                Examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations                         
                that follow.                                                                                  
                                                35 U.S.C. § 102                                               
                      A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in                   
                the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior               
                art reference.  Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2                   
                USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  The inquiry as to whether a reference                    
                anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the                   
                claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.  As set forth by                 
                                                      3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013