Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 18
Application No. 08/810,442
V. Anticipation and Obviousness Rejections of Claim 5
The appellant argues, "[c]laim 5 recites that keys are
never exposed to external view.” (Appeal Br. at 8.) He adds,
“Gammie is to the contrary. He states that keys are
‘observable:’. . . .” (Id.) The examiner answers, "[a]pplicant
has selected a phrase from the background description of the
prior art which Gammie treats by his invention (see fir [sic]
example, fig 7)." (Examiner's Answer at 10.) He adds, “the key
is protected by encryption when outside the device and Piosenka
is used to teach the protection inside the device as well so that
the key is never unprotected.” (Id. at 11.)
Claim 5 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "never exposing said keys to external view, outside
an integrated circuit." Giving the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation, the limitations merely require inter alia that
keys are never exposed outside an integrated circuit.
meaning that we consider the claims to be patentable as presently
drawn.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007