Appeal No. 1998-1589
Application No. 08/388,631
5, line 24, 10th word - line 27, last word.) Therefore, in our view, the RNG circuit may be
either 56, 50 or a combination thereof. Lastly, claim 21 recites “a computer including a
means for interfacing with said random number generator circuit, said means for
interfacing consisting of one or more of the following: a device driver, a TSR, a portion of
the operating system of said computer, and a program stored in the bios memory of said
computer.” Here, we note that the language of claim 21 does not recite any functional
interrelationship of the RNG circuit and the computer with an interface beyond the interface
merely “consisting of one or more of the following: a device driver, a TSR, a portion of the
operating system of said computer, and a program stored in the bios memory of said
computer.” If we accept element 56 as the RNG with an output to a serial link to processor
50, then some communication interface via the serial link would be required. The
examiner states that [b]oth Stankovic and the claimed invention are directed
toward devices (random generators) connected to
computer ports (see fig. 5 of Stankovic). Clearly, one of
ordinary skill in the art would realize that different
devices may be connected to a given port. While the
examiner agrees that the construction of PRG's and
true random generators differs, the language of the
claim is not directed toward a true random generators
construction, it is directed toward a random generator
which is merely connected to a computer port. (See
answer at page 4.)
We agree with the examiner. While there is no detail as to the manner or operation of the
interface, the examiner maintains that the RNG connected to a port would have been some
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007