Appeal No. 2000-1330
Application No. 08/972,835
one-way function. Therefore, we fail to find that Elander
teaches or suggest Appellant's claimed method recited in
Appellant's claim 1 or a key distributor recited in
Appellant's claim 14, lines 8 through 17. Furthermore, upon
our review of Schneier, we fail to find that Schneier closes
the gap.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is further
established that "[s]uch a suggestion may come from the nature
of the problem to be solved, leading inventors to look to
references relating to possible solutions to that problem."
Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d
1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996), citing In
re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1054, 189 USPQ 143, 149 CCPA 1976)
(considering the problem to be solved in a determination of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007