Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 10
Application No. 08/885,817
construction, the limitations require storing a public key on a certification authority or
on a domain name server.
2. Obviousness Determination
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. The question of obviousness is
"based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, Aziz "utilizes DH public-key certificates for key management, such
that each IP source and destination is provided with a Diffie-Hellman public
key. This DH public-key is distributed in the form of a certificate." Col. 8, ll. 12-15.
Because these "certificates are issued by organizational [Certificate Authorities] CAs
which have jurisdiction over the range of IP addresses that are being certified," col. 17,
ll. 14-16, we find that public keys are stored therein and obtained therefrom. Because
CAs have "the authority to bind a particular IP address to a DH public key," id. at ll. 6-7,
moreover, we further find that these constitute domain name servers. Accordingly,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007