Appeal No. 2000-1362
Application 08/914,165
The examiner admits that Olson does not teach providing a
code to a calling party, but reasons that Bieselin discloses a
calling party and (EA6 ¶ 3):
In the invention of Bieselin, all parties that participate
in the recorded communication may later access it. When the
Olson reference is combined with the Bieselin reference, the
result is an encrypted communication among a plurality of
parties. In order for the invention of Bieselin to function
as intended, a decrypt code would have to be given to all
participants.
That is, the examiner considers the calling party limitation to
be "inherent in the combination of references" (EA7 ¶ 5; see also
EA8 ¶ 8). Stated differently (EA8 ¶ 6):
In Bieselin, the calling party may access the recorded
communication. If encryption is included in Bieselin, but
provision of a decryption code to the calling party is not,
then that invention cannot function as originally intended
by Bieselin, because in Bieselin the calling party is
supposed to be able to later access the recorded audio data.
It is clearly within the realm of knowledge of the person of
ordinary skill in cryptography and telecommunications that
provision of a decryption code to the calling party will
solve this problem.
The motivation is further explained as follows (EA9 ¶ 9):
The person of ordinary skill in teleconferencing and
cryptography would recognize the need for security in any
communication system over which critical data will be
transported, including communication systems used by the
groups of persons for with [sic] Bieselin is specifically
intended. Therefore, motivation to include cryptography in
Bieselin exists in the body of knowledge of the person of
ordinary skill.
Appellants argue (Br8) that the fact that Bieselin discloses
a system having a calling party does not make obvious the
limitation in claim 82 of "providing to the calling party a code
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007