Appeal No. 2000-1308
Application 08/550,909
does not anticipate this claim because the encrypted keys of
Rager are transmitted to another sub-system which is contrary to
claim 21 [brief, page 16]. The examiner responds that the step
in question is optional [answer, page 10]. Appellants argue that
the examiner’s reliance on “optional” claim language is improper.
We again agree with the position of appellants. Rager
does not anticipate the invention of claim 21 for the reasons
given by appellants in the briefs. We do not agree with the
examiner’s position that the steps of the rejected claims are
optional in the sense that they do not have to occur. The
claimed invention relates to the steps being performed when the
condition does occur. The prior art must at least relate to
systems using an encrypted key as recited in each of the rejected
claims. The examiner has not identified how the prior art meets
every limitation of the rejected claims even assuming that some
limitations are “optional.” Therefore, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of any of claims 18, 19, 21 and 22.
With respect to the rejection of claims 20 and 23 as
anticipated by Rivest, the examiner indicates how he finds that
Rivest fully meets the invention of these claims [answer, pages
4-5]. With respect to claim 20, appellants argue that Rivest
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007