Appeal 2007-0930
Application 10/014,763
1 Second issue:
2 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and
3 19 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is improper. Specifically, Appellants
4 assert that the Examiner is improperly equating Aura’s authentication center
5 with the claimed user device. Further, Appellants assert that Aura’s mobile
6 station does not meet the claimed intermediary device. Appellants state
7 “[t]he intermediary device in claim 1, in contrast, is operative to check that a
8 first signature generated by a user device is valid and to generate a second
9 digital signature which is a returned to the verifier as a signature generated
10 by the user device.” (Br. 5).
11 The Examiner contends that the rejection is proper. The Examiner
12 states that Appellants’ Specification supports a broad definition of the term
13 “user device” as “any other type of device capable of transmitting or
14 receiving information.” Further, the Examiner finds that Aura teaches in
15 figure 4 that the mobile station checks the first signature SRES1 in step 408
16 and generates a second signature SRES2 in step 407.
17 Thus, the contentions of the Appellants present two issues for us,
18 whether the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed “user device” is
19 reasonable and whether substantial evidence supports the Examiner’s
20 finding that Aura’s user device meets the claimed intermediary device.
21 Third issue:
22 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 11
23 through 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is improper. Specifically,
24 Appellants assert that the Examiner has not adequately shown that one
25 would be motivated to modify Aura with Micali to arrive at the invention of
26 claims 8, 11 through 16, and 18.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013