Appeal No. 2003-1329
Application No. 09/131,386
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 11-13, 20,
22-25 and 30 over Stefik cannot be sustained.
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 14-19, 21
and 26-29, we note that the Examiner, in relying on Ginter for
disclosing digital watermark means and on Rosen for teaching the
calculation of a hash value, has not provided additional evidence
to overcome the deficiencies of Stefik as discussed above with
respect to the rejection of claims 11-13, 20, 22-25 and 30, and
therefore, has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 14-19, 21 and 26-28 over Stefik, Ginter and
Rosen nor of claim 29 over Stefik and Ginter.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007