Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 20
Application No. 08/810,442
security module . . . is observable at its transfer point. . . .”
Id. at ll. 59-61. We interpret such observableness as indicating
that the key signal is outside an integrated circuit embodying
the program descrambler/routing manager 708.
The examiner fails to show that Piosenka cures the defect of
Gammie. We agree with the appellant that “Piosenka merely
provides an approach to preventing detection of data, once the
data is stored within his IC.” (Appeal Br. at 11.) We further
agree with him that “the data still must be transferred into
the IC. Plainly, that transfer is undertaken using the pins
shown in his Figure 1. Those are visible from the outside.”
(Id.) Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 5 as
anticipated and as obvious.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claim 3 under § 112,
¶ 1 and ¶ 2, and claim 10 under § 112, ¶ 1, are affirmed. In
contrast, the rejection of claim 3 under § 103(a); claim 5 under
§ 112, ¶ 2, § 102(b), and § 103(a); and of claim 10 under
§ 102(b) are reversed. Our affirmances are based only on the
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007