Appeal No. 2002-0617
Application 08/942,743
and Menezes for the above discussed limitations. Therefore, we
will not affirm these rejection as well.
We now turn to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 10 through
18, 37 and 41 through 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rosen in view of Menezes. Appellants disagree
with the Examiner’s statement that the computer game called “Pipe
Dream” includes a response means that does not have access to
private keying material. See page 17 of the brief. Appellants
argue that the “Pipe Dream” game does not teach or suggest a
response means including means for proving that the response
means has access to the private keying material. See page 18 of
Appellants’ brief. Appellants further dispute the Examiner’s
statements that the “Pipe Dream” uses a code wheel. Thus,
Appellants have placed facts in dispute.
When determining obviousness, “the [E]xaminer can satisfy
the burden of showing obviousness of the combination ‘only by
showing some objective teaching in the prior art or individual to
combine the relevant teachings of the references.’” In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
citing In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783
(Fed. Cir. 1992). “Broad conclusory statements regarding the
teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007