Appeal No. 2000-1308
Application 08/550,909
steps of these claims are recited in optional form and,
therefore, the claims include the steps not taking place. The
examiner also points to Figure 3 of Rager as anticipating the
claimed invention [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellants argue that the
recitations in these claims are not “optional” [reply brief], and
they argue that Rager does not disclose the re-encryption of the
key as recited in claim 18 [brief, pages 14-16]. The examiner
responds that claim 18 recites encrypting plain text into cypher
text and not the re-encryption of the key [answer, page 10].
Appellants respond that the “plain text” of claim 18 refers to
the plain text resulting from the decryption of the stored key in
step b)i). Therefore, appellants argue that encrypting this
plain text constitutes the re-encryption of the stored key [reply
brief, pages 9-10].
We agree with the position argued by appellants for the
reasons given in the briefs. Rager does not disclose the steps
of decrypting an encrypted key followed by a re-encryption of
that key as recited in claim 18. The examiner does not appear to
have recognized the difference between decrypting and re-
encrypting a stored encrypted key and the mere encryption and
decryption of the transmitted data.
With respect to claim 21, appellants argue that Rager
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007