Appeal 2007-0930
Application 10/014,763
1 different digital signatures. While we do find that Aura teaches two keys
2 with the same value, one in the mobile device and one in the HLR/AUC,
3 these keys are used to generate the same digital signatures. Thus, regardless
4 of the ambiguity of claim 3, we do not find that Aura teaches the limitations
5 of claim 3, and we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
6 Claims 4 and 5 depend upon claim 3 and are also rejected as being
7 anticipated by Aura. We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
8 4 and 5 as for the reasons discussed with claim 3.
9 Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10.
10 On pages 8 and 9 of the Brief, Appellants argue that the rejection of
11 claim 3 is in error for the reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 and
12 because Aura does not disclose a secret key pair. Appellants’ further
13 arguments have not convinced us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
14 claims 6, 7, 9, and 10.
15 Claim 6 recites “wherein the first digital signature comprises a
16 signature s1on a message m, the signature s1 being generated using a secret
17 key s’ of a key pair (s’, p’) associated with the user device.” Initially, we
18 note that the term s’ and p’ are designators and import no meaning into the
19 claim other than to differentiate the keys. Further, we note there is no
20 limitation in claim 6 which recites that the keys s’ and p’ are of different
21 values or produce different results. Further, we note that the claim is
22 broadly written such that it encompasses the situation where a) key s is
23 associated with the user device and is part of a key pair or b) where the key
24 pair is associated with the user device. It is situation a) that Aura teaches.
25 As discussed above in Aura there is a key Ki in the HLR/AUC (the user
26 device) and another key Ki in the mobile station. The key in the HLR/AUC
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013