Appeal 2007-0930
Application 10/014,763
1 claim 2, we concur with the Examiner’s holding that claims 3 through 8 are
2 indefinite.
3 Analysis relating to the second issue:
4 Claim 1 recites a “system including at least a user device.” As stated
5 by the Examiner the Appellants’ Specification provides a list of devices
6 which are user devices and define a user device as being capable of
7 transmitting and receiving information over a network. (Specification 5).
8 Thus, we concur with the Examiner’s claim interpretation for the term “user
9 device.” However, as argued by Appellants in the Reply Brief on page 3, we
10 find that the Specification implies that a user device is operated by a user.
11 We note, that of the listed devices, not all are operated by direct operation of
12 the user. For example, a set top box typically is operated by a user through a
13 remote control.
14 As discussed supra, Aura teaches that the mobile device transmits
15 information to the VPLMN, which relays information to the HLR/AUC.
16 The information is transmitted to the HLR/AUC when the user initiates a
17 connection. In response to receiving this transmission, the HLR/AUC
18 operates to generate and calculate several values which are then transmitted.
19 Thus, we find that the HLR/AUC meets the claim limitation of a user device
20 as it receives and transmits information. Further, we find that the HLR/AUC
21 is user controlled in that it operates in response to user action.
22 Claim 1 further recites, “wherein the verifier sends the first digital
23 signature to the intermediary device, and the intermediary device checks that
24 the first digital signature is a valid digital signature for the user device and if
25 the first digital signature is valid generates a second digital signature which
26 is returned to the verifier as a signature generated by the user device.” Thus,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013