Appeal No. 1998-1926
Application 08/333,829
before us, that the evidence relied upon does not support any
of the prior art rejections made by the examiner.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7,
13, 14, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by the disclosure of Stambler. Anticipation is established
only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S.
1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 13, the
examiner notes that Stambler discloses a method and apparatus
for authenticating a document or a transaction. The examiner
also notes that Stambler uses information from the document or
transaction and applies an encryption process to this
information to derive a variable authentication number which
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007