Appeal No. 2003-1410
Application 09/272,056
Sixtus expressly teaches that his invention does not use
encryption. This is significant because each of the
respective independent claims on appeal requires at least one
recitation of an encryption procedure.
Moreover, the examiner has made no argument to us that
a user computer calculation of UMAN and the corresponding
computation by the trust computer of TSMAN may correspond to some
form of encryption and/or decryption notwithstanding the clear
statements in the reference that it does not use encryption. The
examiner has taken no position on these teachings and it is not
clear to us that the artisan would have regarded the computation
of these respective numerical values based upon identical
mathematical functions as is typical in encryption environments
as a kind of encryption of any kind let alone the nature of the
encryption subject matter set forth in the claims on appeal.
In view of this scenario, we are inclined to agree with
appellant’s basic urgings at page 11 of the principal Brief that
Sixtus does not teach the feature of immediately encrypting at
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007