Appeal No. 2004-0831
Application 09/650,176
2003) and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 11, filed April 10,
2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed August 4, 2003) for a
full exposition thereof.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the obviousness issues raised in
this appeal in light of the record before us, we have come to
the conclusion that the examiner's rejection of claim 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained. Our reasoning in support
of this determination follows.
In rejecting claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner
has determined that Windel discloses a method for generating and
evaluating a certificate or security imprint comprising providing
a register having funds stored therein, and determining and
deducting funds from the register based on a transaction, and
assembling contents to be included in a postmark. What the
examiner finds lacking in Windel is any disclosure or teaching
concerning obtaining a message digest of a digital message or
signing a postmark or certificate, as generally recited in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007