Appeal No. 1998-0183
Application No. 08/413,040
Claims 1 to 3, 6 to 10, and 14
We consider the two independent claims in this group,
namely claims 1 and 8. Claim 1 contains the limitations of
(1), “a means for storing encrypted data for subsequent
retrieval upon demand,” and (2), “means for selectively
storing the transmitted data in a decrypted form for
subsequent retrieval upon demand.” The Examiner’s assertion
that the combination of Goss and Morgan (answer, pages 4 and
5) meets these two limitations is not supported as Appellants
have argued (brief, pages 9 to 16 and reply brief, pages 3 to
5). The Examiner has not presented any evidence which shows
these two limitations, or given any line of reasoning along
those lines. We conclude that the Examiner has not made out a
prima facie case to reject claim 1 and its dependent claims 2
to 3, and 6 to 7. Therefore, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 3, and 6 to 7. The other
independent claim, 8, also contains limitations similar to
those discussed above. Therefore, for the same reasons, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 8 and its
dependent claims 9 to 10.
However, we reach a different conclusion as to claim 14.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007