Appeal No. 2005-0986
Application No. 09/727,904
same entity. We note, again, that, unlike independent claims 1,
16, and 17, claims 18-20 do not specify the particular technique
employing a blinded version of a first ciphertext portion of a
signed ciphertext.
Thus, while we have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will sustain the rejection of claims
18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because appellants have not
convincingly shown any error in the examiner’s position.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EK/RWK
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007