Appeal No. 1998-3332 Page 6
Application No. 08/643,961
“there is no suggestion in the references as to the
desirablity [sic] and thus the obviousness of making this
combination of references.” (Appeal Br. at 15.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claims 3, 11-15, and
32 specify in pertinent part the following limitations: "(a)
acquiring a first digital representation of at least one of a
picture and signature of said legitimate holder of said
instrument, (b) extracting first feature data from said
digital representation, (c) combining said feature data with
said personal data into a single data sequence, (d) generating
a security code by encrypting said single data sequence ...."
Similarly, claims 16 and 31 specify in pertinent part the
following limitations: "a private secret key encrypted machine
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007