Appeal No. 95-4884
Application 08/133,416
that more than one key is being generated in
the methods of claims 1 and 3. No other
interpretation is possible.
We fully agree with appellants’ positions set forth in the
above quoted material. We interpret the common language among
independent claim 1 in the same manner generally asserted by
appellants. Edelmann from our study clearly generates only one
set of keys. Even though the language of generating a
predetermined number of keys may be construed to generate only a
single key, as asserted by appellants, when this language is
taken in the context of the next succeeding clause of independent
claims 1 and 3 of assigning one of said generated "keys" to a
particular postage meter, claims 1 and 3 indicate to the reader
that a plurality of keys must necessarily have been generated in
the generation of a predetermined number of keys clause of each
claim on appeal. Inasmuch as the examiner has set forth no
additional arguments in the answer and both parties are in
agreement with our view that Edelmann teaches only the generation
of a single set of keys at a time, the rejection of claims 1 and
3 must be reversed. As such, the rejection of their respective
dependent claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must also be
reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007