Appeal 2007-0930
Application 10/014,763
1 the scope of the claimed “intermediary device” is that it checks a first digital
2 signature, generates a second digital signature and transmits the second
3 signature if the first digital signature is verified. As discussed above, we
4 find that Aura’s HLR/AUC meets the claimed “mobile device.” Further, as
5 discussed supra, we find that Aura’s mobile station receives a first signature
6 SRES1 and verifies the signatures validity, see step 408 in figure 4. Aura’s
7 mobile station also generates a second digital signature SRES2 and transmits
8 it if the first digital signature is valid. Accordingly, we find that Aura’s
9 mobile station meets the claimed “intermediary device” as it performs the
10 steps recited as being performed on the intermediary device. Thus, we find
11 for the Examiner on the second issue. Appellants have not presented
12 arguments directed to the separate patentability of claims 2, and 19 through
13 25, accordingly we group these claims together with claim 1 and sustain the
14 Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 19 through 25 of the reasons stated
15 supra.
16 Claim 3.
17 On pages 6 and 7 of the Brief, Appellants argue that the rejection of
18 claim 3 is in error for the reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 and
19 because claim 3 recites the use of two keys which is not taught by Aura.
20 This argument has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
21 3.
22 Claim 3 recites “the second digital signature is generated using a
23 second secret key associated with second digital signature protocol having a
24 computational efficiency lower than that of the first digital signature
25 protocol.” As discussed supra, this claim contains several ambiguities,
26 however it is clear from this claim that there are two keys which generate
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013