Appeal No. 96-1903
Application 08/263,368
Examiner’s position [supplemental answer, page 7] and
Appellant’s argument [second reply brief, pages 5 to 6]. We
agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that if one were desirous
of securing a communication, one would have looked to the art
on methods to secure communication. One such art reference
would have been the Pastor patent. Pastor discloses the use
of encrypted numbers for alphanumeric characters, see
Abstract. We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 11 over Hubbard, APA, Auslander, Calvi and Pastor.
In summary, we have affirmed under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the
obviousness rejection of claims 9, 10, 14, 15 and 18 over
Hubbard, APA, Auslander and Calvi and claim 11 over Hubbard,
APA, Auslander, Calvi and Pastor. However, we have reversed
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the obviousness rejection of claims 1,
16 and 19 over Hubbard, APA, Auslander and Calvi; claim 5 over
Hubbard, APA, Auslander, Calvi and Pastor; claims 6 and 17
over Hubbard, APA and Calvi; claim 7 over Hubbard, APA, Calvi
and Auslander; and claim 20 over Hubbard, APA, Auslander,
Calvi and “applicant's another [sic] admission”.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007