Appeal No. 1998-1589
Application No. 08/388,631
of claim 21 as was expressly recited in the language of claim 1 in the decision, to which we
reversed the examiner’s rejection. Here, no port is recited in the language of claim 21,
therefore, there is no error in our decision with respect to this issue. With respect to the
application of the prior art to the invention as recited in claim 21, we have further
elaborated the correspondence above.
Rather than request the Board to make a presentation, appellant has the burden of
identifying a clear error (points misapprehended or overlooked) in the decision. (See 37
CFR § 1.197(b).) We find that appellant has not identified any points misapprehended or
overlooked in the decision.
Appellant points out that the computer in Stankovic is the RNG and is no more than a
software-based PRNG. (See Request for Rehearing at page 3.) We agree with
appellant. Appellant argues that Fasang teaches a computer including a PRNG. Id. at
pages 3-4. Appellant argues that the PRNG of Fasang is not connected to any of the ports
and does not show or require any interface as claimed in claims 21 and 28. Id. Appellant
then expressly states “it shows a control unit 44 connected to a serial port or a computer
56.” Here, appellant admits that the microprocessor 50 or computer is connected to the
port of the PC 56, albeit that any random number generated by either PC 56 or
microprocessor 50 would be transmitted in the direction of the gate 42 rather than from the
microprocessor 50 to a port on the PC 56. Be that as it may, we disagree with appellant’s
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007