Appeal No. 2000-1362
Application 08/914,165
examiner to produce a reference. Because the examiner has also
failed to establish the obviousness of embedding a time stamp in
the encrypted audio recording, the rejection of claim 86 is
reversed for this additional reason.
In addition, both claims 86 and 87 also recite generating
access codes and transmitting them to the two parties. Although
appellants argue the limitations only with respect to claim 87,
the arguments apply also to claim 86. The examiner finds that
Bieselin features an access code controller that generates access
codes and transmits them to the parties "as implicitly disclosed
in figure 6A and column 7 par. 6 of the specification . . .
[which] disclose the use of a password, or access code, to access
the system" (EA4).
There is clearly a difference between the system
"generating" and transmitting access codes to the parties, as
claimed, and receiving access codes (passwords or user IDs) as
taught by Bieselin. The examiner's rejection fails to address
the particular language of the claims. For this additional
reason, the rejection of claims 86 and 87 is reversed.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007