Appeal 2007-0644
Application 10/081,500
OPINION
We select claim 1 as representative of independent claims 1, 13, and
14. Further, we will consider dependent claims to the extent that Appellant
provides separate arguments for the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that Andersson teaches (e.g., ¶ 40) the subject
matter of representative claim 1, except for the user adding a spoiler to the
challenge and encrypting the combined spoiler and challenge. The
Examiner turns to Hara, which discloses (¶¶ 83-84) padding of an IP
datagram to make the length of a data part an integer multiple of 64 bits.
According to Hara, the data part is then better suited for encryption. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to pad the data for
encryption in the method described by Andersson.
Appellant submits, however, that the proposed combination fails to
meet the requirements of claim 1. In Appellant’s view, the “padding”
described by Hara cannot be considered a “spoiler” as recited in the claim.
(Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2-4.)
Appellant’s Specification teaches that the “spoiler” may be added to
the challenge as a prefix or a suffix. (Specification 8: 1-4.) “The challenge
may be a bit sequence. The spoiler may be an additional bit sequence.” (Id.
at ll. 20-21.)
Contrary to the implications of Appellant’s arguments, we do not find
that the Specification teaches that the “additional bit sequence” of the spoiler
cannot consist entirely of “1” bits (i.e., in accordance with the teachings of
Hara with respect to the “padding” of bits). Appellant argues, without
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013