Appeal 2007-0732
Application 09/799,502
Here, claims 1-9 are subject to the same rejection. Because the
Appellants argue only the limitations of claim 1, (Br.2 5), we select that
claim as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of all the claims.
Rather than reiterate the positions of parties in toto, we focus on the issues
therebetween.
III. STORING LOG-IN DATA
The Examiner makes the following findings.
Navarre teaches of [sic] a "gateway [that] can incorporate
security functionality. End users of the gateway can be
authorized to access one or more services through the use of
user security profiles maintained in the user profile database"
(Navarre, col. 4, lines 42-46). In addition, "the gateway acts as
a firewall, adding an additional layer of security to the
network. This firewall feature also simplifies the authentication
and authorization process since security needs only be
managed once (upon logging into the gateway)" (Navarre,
col. 4, lines 58-62).
(Answer 4.) The Appellants argue that "there is no statement in Navarre et
al. regarding certification data for an 'original certifying system' of an
application server." (Reply Br.3 5.) Therefore, the issue is whether Navarre
discloses storing data used to log a user into an application server.
2 We rely on and refer to the Substitute Appeal Brief, in lieu of the original
Appeal Brief, because the latter was defective. We will not consider the
original in deciding this appeal.
3 The Appellants explain that their original Reply Brief included errors, and
that their Supplemental Reply Brief "repeat[s] the arguments therein (with
typographical errors corrected)." (Supplemental Reply Brief 1.) Therefore,
we rely on and refer to the Supplemental Reply Brief, in lieu of the original
Reply Brief. We will not consider the original in deciding this appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013