Appeal No. 2000-1308
Application 08/550,909
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claim 24 based on
Rager taken alone. The rejection notes that step c) is optional.
The rejection also states that although Rager does not teach
storing keys in encrypted form in the ACS, it would have been
obvious to the artisan to do so [answer, pages 5-6]. Appellants
argue that the examiner’s interpretation of Rager does not
satisfy the limitations of claim 24. Appellants also argue that
the examiner’s simple finding of obviousness is not supported by
the record [brief, pages 20-22].
We agree with appellants for the reasons set forth in the
briefs and for the reasons related to our discussion of Rager
above. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We now consider the rejection of claim 25 based on
Finkelstein and Rager. The rejection is set forth on pages 6-7
of the answer. Appellants argue that there is no motivation for
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007