Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 4
Application No. 08/810,442
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 8 as anticipated,
claim 2 as obvious, claim 3 as indefinite and non-enabled, and
claim 10 as non-enabled and lacking a written description. He
did err, however, in rejecting claim 3 as obvious; claim 5 as
indefinite, anticipated, and obvious; and claim 10 as
anticipated. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part. Our opinion
addresses the following rejections:
• indefiniteness rejection of claims 3 and 5
• enablement rejection of claims 3 and 10
• written description rejection of claim 10
• anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1-3,
8, and 10
• anticipation and obviousness rejections of claim 5.
I. Indefiniteness Rejection of claims 3 and 5
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the examiner or
appellant in toto, we address the two points of contention
therebetween. First, the examiner asserts, "[w]ith respect to
claim 3, the meaning ‘[key] of triple-DES type’ is unclear.”
(Examiner's Answer at 6.) The appellant argues that three
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007