Appeal No. 2001-0575
Application 08/924,867
which data” [answer-page 6]. Again, the examiner makes an allegation but fails to point to
anything to support such an allegation. If Dyson disclosed a hash without an identifier, then,
clearly, all hashes must not need such an identifier. Accordingly, the examiner must show some
reason, suggested by the prior art, as to why the artisan would have been led to supply such
identifiers where none are taught.
Further, the examiner alleges that although Dyson fails to teach the advantages of
encrypting the pre-processed hashes and having the display computer decrypt the hash which was
received from the authentication server, it would have been obvious to include an encryption
module in the authentication server to encrypt hashes because Dyson equips each computer with
encryption/decryption modules. How can it possibly be obvious to encrypt hashes received from
an authentication server when there is no authentication server taught by the applied references?
The examiner’s rationale appears to be nothing more than a bevy of unsupported obviousness
conclusions based on previous, bootstrapped, unsupported conclusions of obviousness.
The examiner’s entire case is comprised of unsupported allegations of what would have
been “obvious” or “advantageous.” Even if certain things might have been well known, there
must still be some convincing reasoning as to what would have motivated the artisan to make the
proposed modifications. This factual question of motivation is material to patentability, and
cannot be resolved on subjective belief and unknown authority. It is improper, in determining
whether a person of ordinary skill would have been led to this combination of references, simply
to “[use] that which the inventor taught against its teacher.” In re Sang-Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007