Appeal No. 2000-1362
Application 08/914,165
Claim 82
The examiner finds that Bieselin does not disclose the steps
of "encrypting" and "storing the encrypted audio communication"
(EA3; EA5 ¶ 1). Although not mentioned by the examiner, Bieselin
also does not perform the step in claim 82 of "providing to the
calling party a code for decrypting the encrypted audio
communication." The examiner finds that Olson discloses a device
that encrypts audio messages and stores them in encrypted form
and that Olson discloses sending a cryptographic key to a user
directory associated with the message (Paper No. 4, pp. 6-7;
EA4). The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
"to combine the encryption properties of Olson with the recording
properties of Bieselin in order to create an apparatus for
securely storing audio signals, because the types of persons for
whom the systems are designed would benefit from this feature in
that they would not want their messages to be available to all
users of a system" (Paper No. 4, p. 7; EA4).
Appellants argue that Olson provides a code allowing access
to the encrypted voice by the called party, but not the calling
party (Br6-7). Thus, it is argued that Olson does not disclose
or make obvious the step of "providing to the calling party a
code for decrypting the encrypted audio communication."
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007