Appeal No. 2005-0986
Application No. 09/727,904
Appellants further allege that Nishioka “teaches away” from
the claimed invention because the examiner alleges that the
reference discloses that selected information relating to a
purchase request by a user is only known to a merchant, while the
instant claimed invention relates to purchasing an information
item wherein that item is unknown to the merchant.
We have reviewed the evidence before us, including the
arguments of appellants and the examiner, and we conclude
therefrom that the examiner has not established the requisite
prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claims 1, 16, and 17 each requires the receipt
of a “blinded version of the first ciphertext portion of the
signed ciphertext.” The examiner admits that Nishioka discloses
no such thing, relying on Kyojima for such a teaching. Yet, the
portions of Kyojima referenced by the examiner refer to a blind
decryption technique, but we find no reference in Kyojima to a
blinded version of a “ciphertext portion of the signed
ciphertext,” and the examiner has not convincingly pointed to
anything in the references suggesting such. Nishioka refers to
“ciphers” and to a “signature” (e.g., column 13, lines 48-49),
but we fail to see how a recitation of a “signature” in Nishioka
and a description of a blind decryption technique in Kyojima
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007