Appeal No. 2003-0285
Application No. 08/814,409
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 23 and 25)
and the answer (paper number 24) for the respective positions of
the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims
23 through 31, and the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
4, 6 through 13 and 15 through 22.
We agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, pages 4 and
5) that Dabbish automatically changes the structure of the
reprogram elements 100 and 101 via a new cipher algorithm. On
the other hand, we agree with the appellants’ argument (brief,
page 4; reply brief, pages 2 and 3) that Dabbish changes the
crypto core elements 100 and 101 by programming changes rather
than by circuit changes as required by all of the claims on
appeal. We do not agree with the examiner’s finding (answer,
page 9) that “[c]hanging circuit connections is anticipated by
PALs, which are included in Dabbish’s crypto cores” because
Dabbish, as well as appellants’ disclosed invention, clearly
states that circuit changes and program changes are distinct
techniques for changing encrypting/decrypting apparatus. To be
more specific, appellants disclose the shortcomings in software
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007