Appeal No. 1998-0183
Application No. 08/413,040
claimed features against the Goss reference (answer, pages 3
to 4), the Examiner makes a prima facie case by asserting that
“Goss discloses the data as ‘digital’ rather than ‘binary’.
The use of binary data, . . . would be an expedient obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art.” Appellants present various
arguments thereagainst (brief, pages 4 to 9). However, like
the Examiner (answer, pages 6 to 8), we find that claim 12
does not recite any storage step and the arguments relating
to the storage means or steps are not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. We find no specific arguments rebutting
the above prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 12 over Goss.
With respect to claim 13, Appellants argue (reply brief,
pages 2 to 3) that “[t]here is no suggestion in Goss that a
[sic] step[s] of decrypting . . . and transmitting the
decrypted data for printing . . . are to be contained in a
portable housing
. . . . ” The Examiner contends (answer, pages 4 and 9),
that Goss does teach the concept of placing an
encryption/decryption unit between a facsimile machine and its
telephone line and such a unit is of the “connectable” type
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007