Appeal No. 2005-1895
Application 08/861,989
material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not
distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).
Appellants also argue at page 7 of the brief that the references fail to teach “a unique
software key within a GPS unit.” We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive. Appellants
have overlooked two facts in Hornbuckle. Hornbuckle teaches at page 8, lines 1-2, that
RCM 18 is associated with the target computer 14. Therefore, the host computer 12 would
see the RCM 18 and computer 14 as a single remote system. Further, Hornbuckle teaches
at page 20, the last line, that there is a unique special key built into the RCM 18. That
unique special key is used by the RCM 18 to decrypt the transmitted encryption key, which
is used in turn to decrypt the rental software.
Finally, Appellants traverse the Examiner’s assertion that it would have been obvious
to have alternatively provided the host with a copy of the client key as part of the initial
request. The Examiner responds that evidence has been supplied supporting the official
notice taken in the rejection that “the needed key can be provided by either party.” Also, the
Examiner states in the rejection that it “is a matter of system design choice to choose who
transmits a copy of the key, so long as both parties use the same key.” Based on the
rejection before us, we find Appellants argument on this point persuasive.
We note that the evidence supplied by the Examiner is not discussed in the
Examiner’s answer, nor is it part of the rejection on appeal. Therefore, such evidence does
not serve as a basis for our decision. As the basis for our decision on this point we turn to
the rejection at page 5 of the answer. The Examiner does not address the fact that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007