Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 42-4 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 4
`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 42-4 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`EXHIBIT 26
`EXHIBIT 26
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 42-4 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`AIRE-APPLE-00000643
`
`Application No.: 10/531,259
`Examiner: Trang T. Doan
`Ast Unit: 2131
`
`REMARKS
`
`Amendments
`Claims 1 and 10 have been amended to more clearly recite the subject matter for
`which protection is sought to avoid any misinterpretation of the original claim language.
`is amended to recite that the portable data carrier is arranged to perform
`Thus, claim 1
`different user authentication methods and describes the manner in which quality information
`regarding authentication of the user is carried out by the portable data carrier to determine
`for example, at page 2,
`Support for the amendment is found,
`proof of authentication.
`paragraph 3 and page 5, paragraph 1 of the specification.
`Claim 10 has been amended in a manner so that it is consistent with claim 1 and
`support for the amendment is found in the same locations within the written description as
`identified above with respect to the amendments made to claim 1.
`
`Claim Objections
`The objections to claims 1, 10 and 14 are moot in view of the amendments made to
`the claims.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC $112
`The rejection of claims 1 and 10 under 35 USC §112 is now moot m view of the
`The word “locating” im claims 1 and 10 was a
`amendments made to the claims.
`typographical error. The term “creating” was the intended word to be used in the claims.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC §102
`The rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12 and 14 under 35 USC §102(e) on grounds that
`the claims are anticipated by Mimura (U.S. 7,162,058)
`in view of the
`is now moot
`amendments made to claims 1 and 10. Specifically, the original step in claim 1 of creating
`quality information about how the user has been authenticated has been expanded somewhat
`to provide a better foundation for the process of developing quality information regarding the
`authentication procedure that is used by the portable data carrier. More specifically, as
`described in the specification, the portable data carrier is arranged to perform different user
`authentication methods, and then, the data carrier performs a security-establishing operation
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 42-4 Filed 07/07/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`AIRE-APPLE-00000644
`
`Application No.: 10/531,259
`Examiner: Trang T. Doan
`Art Unit: 2131
`
`comprising creating quality information about how the authentication of the user was
`performed by the used user authentication method.
`Clearly, there is not the remotest suggestion in Mimura that different authentication
`procedures can be used by the user or creating quality information via the authentication
`program described in the patent. On the contrary, Mimura simply teaches a fingerprint
`comparison authentication process and nothing more to establish authentication by a user.
`As explained in the specification, the problem solved by the present invention lies in
`effecting a secure electronic transaction using a portable data carrier which takes into account
`the quality of the user authentication performed. When the user authentication is being
`performed in accordance with the invention, the performing data carrier produces quality
`information about the authentication procedure used. This “voucher” is attached to the result
`of a security-establishing operation subsequently performed by the portable data carrier. The
`recipient of the thus formed message can therefore clearly recognize how a user has
`authenticated himself before effecting the security-establishing operation. Accordingly, a
`secure transaction can be affected contingent on the quality of the user authentication.
`in an electronic purse application, authentication for an application
`For example,
`involving the withdrawal of a sum of money below a limiting value can be effected after a
`simple PIN authentication, while amounts of money to be withdrawn above such limiting
`value would require a more secure authentication, such as by means of a biometric feature.
`(See page 2, first paragraph.)
`The result is that tampering with an authentication voucher even when an authorized
`user has access to both a portable data carrier and an associated,
`low-order authentication
`is rendered virtually impossible, even though the user has an associated PIN.
`information,
`(See page 2, third paragraph.) This is quite different from Mimura, where the electronic
`authentication unit compares a fingerprint image of a clerk with a reference fingerprint
`information stored on the IC card 100, with the authentication unit 103 performing an
`If the newly
`electronic authentication with a host computer 130 if the fingerprints match.
`inputted fingerprint matches the reference fingerprint
`information 104, access to the
`authentication information 105 is allowed and the authentication is made between the
`applications 131 and the electronic authentication unit 103 so that
`the access from the
`terminal 120 to the applications 130 is permitted, enabling the clerk to authorize the
`application.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 42-4 Filed 07/07/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`AIRE-APPLE-00000645
`
`Application No.: 10/531,259
`Examiner: Trang T. Doan
`Art Unit: 2131
`
`As noted previously, nothing is disclosed in Mimura regarding the availability of
`multiple authentication procedures in combination with the creation of quality information by
`a portable data carrier about how an authentication of the user was performed, followed by
`using such information during the security-establishing operation.
`Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 is
`in order and the same is respectfully requested.
`The above remarks apply equally with regard to apparatus claim 10. The withdrawal
`of the rejection of claim 10 is likewise requested.
`Claims 2-9 and 11-14 are patentable at least on the basis of the patentability of claims
`1 and 10 from which they depend.
`In addition, each claim recites additional subject matter
`that further distinguishes the elements of the independent claims over the cited prior art.
`Accordingly, allowance of the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-14 is in order and the same is
`requested.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC
`The rejection of claims 2 and 11 under 35 USC §103(a) in view of Mimura and
`Barlow is moot in view of the amendments to the claims and it is respectfully submitted that
`the patentability of claims 2 and 11 has been established by the amendments to claims 1 and
`10, and likewise, with regard to claims 9 and 13.
`The application having been placed in condition for allowance, its passage to issue is
`respectfully requested.
`
`BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
`Floor
`625 Slaters Lane,
`Alexandria, VA 22314-1176
`Phone: (703) 683-0500
`Facsimile: (703) 683-1080
`Date: November 26, 2008
`
`