Appeal No. 2000-1362
Application 08/914,165
The examiner relies on the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art to supply missing limitations and as motivation
to modify the combination of Bieselin and Olson. However, it
appears here that the asserted knowledge of those in the art,
which is supposed to fill in the gaps in the rejection, is
nothing more than a guise for hindsight based on appellants'
disclosure. Neither Bieselin nor Olson address reducing the
vulnerability of digitally recorded audio information to
tampering while allowing a calling party access to the
information. Yet the examiner somehow finds this result inherent
in the final result based on knowledge of those in the art. As
we noted, the examiner erred in concluding that the combination
of Olson and Bieselin suggests encrypting an audio communication
of a calling party, as opposed to encrypting a voice mailbox as
taught by Olson. Thus, the examiner also errs in concluding that
the only difference is whether it would have been obvious to
provide the parties with the code to access the encrypted
information. The examiner glosses over the actual differences by
overgeneralizing the teachings of Olson and relying on vague
references to knowledge in the art. It is impossible to tell
exactly what specific facts about the knowledge the art the
examiner is finding so that we can perform a meaningful review.
We are not aware of any general knowledge in the art that
supports the examiner's conclusion of obviousness. In any case,
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007