Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 8
Application No. 08/810,442
Here, as explained regarding the indefiniteness of claim 3,
one skilled in the art would understand DES to be a type of
encryption algorithm rather than a type of key. No evidence in
the record, moreover, supports the appellant’s argument that such
keys are well known. Absent a definition of the claimed “key . .
. of triple-DES type,” we are not persuaded that one skilled in
the art would be able to make and use the claimed invention
without undue experimentation. Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of claim 3 as non-enabled.
Second, the examiner asserts, “[t]he specification does not
enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the
invention of claim 10. The specification does not address what
makes the bus (or any means) require that the ‘key must be
entered onto said bus in encrypted form to be accepted by a
computation means.’” (Examiner’s Answer at 8.) The appellant
argues, “the only ports of entry for keys PK and SK are busses 55
and 56 in Figure 8 of the Specification. However, these keys
must be entered in encrypted form onto these busses. If a non-
encrypted key is entered, then gibberish will be delivered by the
computation means.” (Appeal Br. at 24-25.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007