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 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013