Appeal 2007-0901
Application 10/063,402
cumulative, adjectives. See, e.g., Troyka et al., Quick Access Reference for
Writers, 5th Ed. § 59(e), Pearson Education, Inc. (2007). We therefore
disagree that the indicated section of the Specification teaches that a
“trusted” message is a message that requires encryption and an associated
signature. According to the Specification, a “trusted” message requires
neither encryption nor an associated signature. While paragraph 11 of the
Specification describes a preferred embodiment in which the message from
the data center to the client system is signed and encrypted, instant claim 5
specifies neither signing or encryption.
Batten-Carew describes the entire system (Figure 1) as being a
secured communications system or community. Col. 2, ll. 61-66. Batten-
Carew does not describe the details of sending the processed request from
the administrative entity to the end-user. However, the reference provides
adequate support for the Examiner’s finding that the message is “trusted,” at
least for the reason that the message is sent and received within the secured
communications system (e.g., col. 2, ll. 61-66; col. 8, ll. 14-25). Moreover,
the message is sent from a trusted third party, consistent with Appellants’
invention as described in the Specification, and thus may be fairly
considered a “trusted message.”
Batten-Carew at column 7, lines 8 through 15 could be read as
describing an alternative embodiment in which all processed requests are
sent directly to the end-user. However, instant claim 5 (step (b4)) requires
no more than one trusted message from the data center to one managed
client system, which does not preclude that some (or even most) messages
might be sent from the administrator system to the managed client system.
We thus need not decide whether the reference describes an embodiment
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013