Appeal No. 2001-0575
Application 08/924,867
show such an image archive server, contending merely that it would be “advantageous for the
pre-computed hashes to be stored in a central archive controlled by a server rather than each
computer [as taught by Dyson] having to store the pre-computed hashes separately because it
would not necessitate that each display computer devote it [sic] limited system resources to
storing hashes. It would have been obvious...to include a server controlling a storage device in
which pre-computed hashes would be placed and call that an authentication server” [answer-page
5]. The examiner has no reasonable basis for this conclusion as the applied references clearly do
not teach or suggest a central “archive server,” as claimed. The examiner has offered no
evidence that there would have been any advantage to storing pre-computed hashes in a central
archive controlled by a server and it would appear that the only evidence of this, on the record, is
appellants’ own disclosure.
While it is not clear what the examiner relies on for the teaching of the claimed
“acquisition computers” and the “display stations,” the examiner’s statement that a “single
computer could serve as both an acquisition and/or display computer” [answer-page 5-emphasis
added] falls far short of an evidentiary showing of obviousness since the mere fact that
something could be done does not, in and of itself, constitute obviousness within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103.
While the examiner admits that Dyson does not teach the advantages of including an
identifier with the hash, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to include such
an identifier because, “without the identifier, it would be difficult to know which hash belongs to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007