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 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007