Appeal No. 2002-1658
Application No. 08/922,339
complete redesign of the system rather than a modification, as
suggested by the examiner.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 12) that Steinberg is not
limited to the user's defining the encryption key, but rather,
also includes an embodiment in which encryption is performed
"with or without the user encryption key." The examiner
concludes (Answer, pages 12-13) that it would have been obvious
"in the spirit of Steinberg . . . to encrypt the software with a
program key and authorized user computer system key." As pointed
out by appellants (Reply Brief, page 3), in the alternative
embodiment referenced by the examiner, the encryption key is
derived at least in part from the address at which the program
exists on the disk drive and then remains in the file server. At
no point is the key distributed to the user or terminal.
Therefore, as asserted by appellants (Reply Brief, page 4) "there
is no reason for the user to receive a key from any key server,"
and the examiner has not provided any compelling reason for such.
As stated supra, Steinberg fails to disclose a key server
for supplying the decryption key, and neither Wasilewski nor
McCarty suggests modifying Steinberg to include the claimed key
server. Further, Allen fails to cure the shortcomings of the
other references. Consequently, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of independent claims 10, 11, 13, 22, and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007