Appeal No. 2003-2149 Page 4
Application No. 09/498,379
As to claim 58, a third party of the decryption key is taught by Obata as
other entity (Fig. 1).
Claims 59-62 are rejected for the similar reason as claim 57.
The appellant's argument in the brief (Paper No. 11, filed February 12, 2003) is
as follows:
Applicant does not agree with the Examiner's conclusion that his invention
is obvious in light of Obata et al. and Mott et al. for the following reasons. Obata
describes a method for depositing a private key used in a crypto system that
includes the steps of dividing the private key into first and second parts at a user
entity and maintaining the first part at the user entity. The second part is
deposited from the user entity to another entity. In response to a user request
from the user entity, the second part is delivered to the user entity, and the first
and second parts are combined and used to decrypt data at the user entity.
Applicant's invention includes the feature of supplying encrypted data
along with a first part of the decryption key. The Examiner suggests that this
feature is disclosed by Obata at Col. 4, lines 45-60, and Col. 14, lines 11-38.
However a careful reading of the referenced sections reveals no mention of
Obata supplying encrypted data along with a part of a decryption key.
Mott discloses a system for targeting digital information to a playback
device, wherein an ID is embedded in the playback device and the ID is also
embedded in digital data supplied to the playback device. The IDs are compared
and the digital information is played if the IDs match. Mott does not teach, show
or suggest that the ID is a decryption key. Therefore Mott cannot be read as
suggesting supplying a part of a decryption key along with digital data to a
playback device.
The examiner's response to this argument in the answer (Paper No. 12, mailed
May 16, 2003) is as follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007