Appeal No. 1998-1926
Application 08/333,829
Each of the examiner’s rejections of the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103 fundamentally relies on the examiner’s
incorrect position that Stambler fully meets the invention of
the independent claims. There are differences between the
claimed invention and the teachings of Stambler (for example,
the use of a unique identification number) which have not been
addressed by the examiner. The additional citation of
Schneier and Haber does not overcome the deficiencies in
Stambler noted above. Since the examiner has not properly
addressed the differences between the claimed invention and
the applied prior art, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of the obviousness of the claimed invention.
Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 4, 8-12, 15 and 18-20.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007