Appeal 2007-1317
Application 09/731,623
before us, that the evidence relied upon does not support the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse.
Independent claim 1
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as
being unpatentable over Savill in view of Wu.
Appellants argue that Wu’s stacking (i.e., aggregation) of
authentication services is not done in response to a second user
authentication, but rather is preexisting and independent of any actual user
authentication action (emphasis in original). Appellants further argue that
Wu expressly teaches away from a second user authentication, or of
performing any action in response to such (missing) second user
authentication, by its teaching of a unified single user logon. Appellants
conclude that the Examiner has impermissibly relied upon hindsight in
formulating the rejection (Br. 9).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that Wu’s unified
login does include the second user authentication because: (a), the first and
the second user authentications in the authentication security system, as
recited in the claim, are not limited to human entry (which is also consistent
with the Specification at page 10, paragraph 2 and page 13, paragraph 4),
and (b), Wu’s unified login invokes multiple logical authentication services
and associated security contexts (or credentials) that are dynamically built
and aggregated during run-time. The Examiner argues that by using Wu's
“stacking” authentication services (col. 6, l. 65), the security contexts are
aggregated depending upon which authentications are invoked and what
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013