Appeal No. 1999-0876
Application No. 08/693,494
801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See
also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and
Derrick,
730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The examiner (Answer, page 4) asserts that Breeden
discloses a method which establishes a communication link
between a cordless base station TBS-1 and authorization
equipment CPP-1. However, CPP-1 is the cordless telephone
portion of a telephone handset, not authorization equipment.
Further, even if one were to consider CPP-1 authorization
equipment, each of independent claims 1, 11, and 12 recites
that the connect message has a first random number, and
independent claims 3, 11, and 17 recite that the authentication
request has a random number generated at the cordless base
station. We find no teaching of any generation of random
numbers in Breeden, and the examiner points to none. In fact,
the examiner has apparently disregarded these limitations in
rejecting the claims over Breeden. Thus, Breeden fails to
disclose each and every element of each of the independent
claims. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 3, 11, 12, and 17, nor of their
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007