Appeal No. 2000-1999
Application 08/748,314
key Ksca and assigning a customer account (CACCT) to said customer and a
merchant account (MACCT) to said merchant, said customer having a customer
public key Kpc, said merchant having a merchant public key Kpm, said protocol
comprising the steps of:
sending a quotation from said merchant to said customer, said
quotation including said Kpm, a Ksca-signed signature that is a function of
said MACCT, an unsigned copy of a price and a merchant private key
(Ksm)-signed signature that is a function of said MACCT and said price;
receiving an order in response to said quotation, said order
including said Kpc, a Ksca-signed signature that is a function of said CACCT,
an unsigned copy of said price and a customer private key (Ksc)-signed
signature that is a function of said CACCT, said MACCT and said price; and
replying to said order by filing said order.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Sirbu et al. (Sirbu) 5,809,144 Sep. 15, 1998
Schneier, Applied Cryptography, 2nd Ed., pp. 26, 34-44, and 185-87 (1995)
Claims 1-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Sirbu in
view of Schneier.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We REVERSE.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v, John
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007