Appeal No. 2000-1308
Application 08/550,909
does not disclose that the private key is used to encrypt other
keys. Appellants also argue that Rivest does not meet the
recitation of preventing other sub-systems from gaining access to
the storage key and the recitation of a second encryption step
which requires a key other than the storage key [brief, pages 16-
18]. With respect to claim 23, appellants argue that Rivest does
not disclose the three claimed keys nor the impossibility recited
in the last clause of the claim [id., pages 18-19].
We again agree with the position of appellants. Rivest
does not anticipate the invention of claims 20 and 23 for the
reasons given by appellants in the briefs. Although the examiner
does not agree with the arguments made by appellants, we find
appellants’ arguments to be convincing that the disclosure of
Rivest does not fully meet the recitations of claims 20 and 23.
Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
20 and 23.
We now consider the rejections of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007