Appeal 2007-2437
Application 09/816,080
adopting only the bits having a measured value beyond a threshold value.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Appellant's argument concerning both the sending and
receiving parties in Mayers being involved in the testing procedure, the
Examiner maintains that the claim language is open ended and does not
specifically exclude the sending party in the determination (Answer 6). We
agree with the Examiner that the language of independent claim 1 does not
preclude the involvement of the sending party. Therefore, Appellant's
argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 since Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s initial
showing of anticipation. Additionally, we will sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 3 which Appellant has not provided separate arguments for
patentability.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Appellant argues that “claim 2
recites that if transmission is considered safe, the key string is accepted and
refined, for instance. The Examiner cites column 8, line[] 65 through
column 9, line[] 20, but the undersigned could not find any teaching of the
combination of features of claim 2.” (Br. 8). We do not find this to be a
separate argument for patentability and is not persuasive. But, in the Reply
Brief, Appellant expands upon the original broad argument set forth in the
Brief and argues that the cited portions of Mayers do not teach "obtaining a
refined key string with amplification such as an error correction process."
(Reply Br. 2). We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Mayers do
not discuss the use of amplification or an error correction process.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2 since the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013