Appeal No. 2000-1362
Application 08/914,165
decrypt key as recited by claims 86 and 87 (Br11 & Br12). The
examiner applies the same basic reasoning as with claim 82
(EA10): "[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art would [have]
be[en] motivated to provide a decrypt key to all parties
authorized to access the communication, in order to allow the
invention of Bieselin to function as originally intended."
The examiner's rationale is not persuasive for the reasons
discussed in connection with claim 82. The examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the limitation of transmitting the decrypt key to the two parties
to the audio communication, as recited in claims 86 and 87. The
rejection of claims 86 and 87 is reversed.
Although we have reversed the rejection of claim 86, we
further note that the examiner has provided no factual evidence
to support the obviousness of "embedding a time stamp in the
encrypted audio recording." The examiner takes Official Notice
that authentication was well known in the art of encryption and
that time stamps were well known forms of authentication (EA4).
This is simply not the kind of fact that is susceptible to taking
of Official Notice. However, even if true, the examiner has not
addressed the specific limitation of embedding the time stamp in
the encrypted audio recording. If the examiner's position is
that embedding a time stamp in an encrypted audio recording was
well known in the art, then it should be no problem for the
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007