Appeal 2007-1554
Application 10/844,387
wherein a Web Service “does not rely upon the issuance
of certificates or private keys to the individuals for whom
Web Receipts are created” as per claim 44 [and]
…protection of transaction details through ‘encryption to
a single public key belonging only to the Web Receipt
Service and only the Web Receipt Service can decrypt it’
as per claim 45.
(Br. 13). The argument is a side show apart from the main event. Ginter discloses
keeping the authentication keys under the control of the go-between 4700 (Ginter,
col. 9, ll. 5-67) and not the parties to the transaction, hence answering these
limitations. What Appellants’ argument amounts to is a “divide and conquer”
approach—since Ginter does show these features even though not found in
Robinson. Sometime ago binding precedent made clear that an obviousness
rejection cannot be overcome by attacking references individually—which is
precisely what Appellants are doing. In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757, 159 USPQ
725, 728 (CCPA 1968).
Further, as found supra, the XLST limitation recited in claim 47 is an XML
based language used for the transformation of XML documents that is well known
in the art. Common sense dictates using XLST to style a XML document to redact
portions when one uses XML. The use of common sense may control the
reasoning to combine prior art teachings. See KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d
at 1397. We therefore find nothing novel or unobvious in the limitations of claims
46 and 47.
We reject Appellants argument that claim 48 is allowable because although
Ginter does teach employing stenography to hold a postmarked receipt, it does not
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013