`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 152-2 Filed 07/12/18 Page 2 of 2
`
`Application/Control Number: 09/539,667
`Art Unit: 2131
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections • 35 USC § 103
`
`I.
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`II.
`
`Claims 1,5-8,10,11,15-18,20,21, and 22 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Apperson et al.
`
`As per claims 1,11,21, and 22, Apperson et al discloses of providing executable
`
`code (downloadable) with privilege request code that indicates (fetches) a set of
`
`privileges or privilege categories that the executable code (downloadable) may try to
`
`perform on the client machine (one or more references to a component). The
`
`distributing authority digitally signs (performs a function) the executable code and the
`
`privilege request code and provides a certificate (generated downloadable I D) that can
`
`be traced by a client to a known certifying authority (col. 2, lines 43-53). Also recited by
`
`Apperson et al of providing executable code (downloadable) with privilege request code
`
`that indicates (fetches) a set of privileges or privilege categories (first and all
`
`components referenced) that the executable code (downloadable) may try to perform on
`
`the client machine (one or more references to a component)(col. 2, lines 43-47). The
`
`teachings of Apperson et al are silent in disclosing that the executable code
`
`(downloadable) does not include any references. The examiner hereby asserts that it is
`
`obvious for the teachings of Apperson et alto make use of this feature. It would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have
`
`been motivated to include or exclude components in executable code (downloadable).
`
`The governing factor would be the intent of the executable code (downloadable) and
`
`