Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 6
Application No. 08/810,442
. .” (Id.) We agree with the examiner that “the phrase ‘[key] of
triple-DES type’ . . . is not defined.” (Examiner’s Answer
at 12.) Although the sentences relied on by the appellant also
disclose “using a 56-bit encryption key,” (id.), and “a stronger
112-bit key,” (id.), there is no mention of triple-DES type key.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 3 as indefinite.
Second, the examiner asserts, “[w]ith respect to claims 5,
the phrase ‘said keys’ recited in 5d lacks proper antecedent
basis as it is unclear whether it refers to ‘said first keys,’
refers to ‘said second keys,’ or refers to ‘both said first and
second keys.’” (Examiner’s Answer at 6.) The appellant argues
that he “cannot see any reasonable interpretation of claim 5,
wherein ‘said keys’ in paragraph (d) refers to anything other
than all previously recited keys.” (Reply Br. at 12.)
One skilled in the art would understand “said keys” to be a
shorthand reference to all keys previously recited in claim 5,
viz., to both the first and second keys. Therefore, we reverse
the rejection of claim 5 as indefinite.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007