Appeal No. 2004-0831
Application 09/650,176
claim 35 on appeal. To account for these differences, the
examiner looks to Fischer ‘200, urging that this patent teaches
a method for authenticating digitally represented data such as
computer files, letters, graphic files, etc., wherein a digest of
the object (e.g., a digital message) is created and a trusted
authority is provided for digitally signing the object to certify
its authenticity. The examiner then concludes that it would have
been obvious to combine the systems of Windel and Fischer so as
to gain certain advantages as set forth on page 4 of the answer,
and presumably to result in the method set forth in claim 35 on
appeal.
After a careful evaluation of the teachings and suggestions
to be derived by one of ordinary skill in the art from the
disparate systems described in Windel and Fischer ‘200, it is
our opinion that the examiner has failed to meet his burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. More particu-
larly, we are of the view that the examiner's reasoning in
support of the obviousness rejection before us on appeal (as
expressed on pages 3-6 of the answer) is essentially based on
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007