Appeal No. 2002-1658
Application No. 08/922,339
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 4 through 11,
13, 15 through 22, 25, 27, 29, 31, and 32.
Each of claims 10, 11, 13, 22, and 32, the independent
claims, recites decoding using a decryption key transmitted or
distributed from a key server. The examiner states (Answer, page
4) that Steinberg "is vague in disclosing 'a key server
independent from the file server, for distributing the decryption
key issued by the manager.'" Steinberg, however, is quite clear
that the decryption key is selected, not received, by the user
(see column 3, lines 37-41). Nonetheless, the examiner attempts
to cure the deficiency of Steinberg with Wasilewski, pointing out
that Wasilewski includes a public key server. Yet, nowhere in
the rejection does the examiner explain the motivation for
modifying Steinberg to include a key server as disclosed by
Wasilewski. The examiner asserts (Answer, page 5) that combining
the systems of Steinberg, Wasilewski, McCarty and Allen yields a
number of supposed benefits. This, however, does not explain the
motivation for each specific modification nor exactly how one
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007