Ex Parte Cok - Page 5




              Appeal No. 2003-2149                                                                  Page 5                
              Application No. 09/498,379                                                                                  


                            Appellant's arguments are based on believing that Obata (U. S. Patent                         
                     6,072,876) fails to teach supplying encrypted data along with a part of a                            
                     decryption key. Obata teaches supplying a part of encryption/decryption key                          
                     (column 4 lines 45-60 and column 14 lines 11-38). There are only two ways that                       
                     crypto keys can be delivered: keys are delivered alone, or keys are delivery with                    
                     encrypted/decrypted data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in                     
                     the art to choose either method of delivering crypto key according to user's                         
                     design choice because of the following two main reasons:                                             
                            First, appellant has no mention of any advantages in the specification that                   
                     choose sending crypto key along with encrypted data over sending the crypto                          
                     key alone; and also, appellant has no mention that choosing sending crypto key                       
                     along with encrypted data rather than sending the crypto key alone is used for a                     
                     particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. See, In re Chu, 36 F.3d 292, 36                      
                     USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA                            
                     1975).                                                                                               
                            Secondly, sending crypto key along with encrypted data or sending crypto                      
                     key alone performs equally well to appellant's claimed invention: either method                      
                     results user to receive a crypto key so that the user can the key to encrypt or                      
                     decrypt data. See, In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 720-21, 25 USPQ2d 1076,                                  
                     1078-1079 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Launder and Hosmer, 222 F.2d 371, 105                              
                     USPQ 446 (CCPA 1955).                                                                                
                            Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to                       
                     realize that it is indeed a design choice in Obata's system to use either method to                  
                     deliver crypto keys.                                                                                 


                                                       OPINION                                                            
                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                      
              the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                   
              respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence                       
              of our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                     








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007