Appeal No. 2005-1895
Application 08/861,989
Hornbuckle uses a complex encryption scheme with two levels of encryption keys. Rather,
the Examiner characterizes Hornbuckle as a simple “single-key encryption.” Thus, we find
that the rejection does not in fact address why it would be obvious to modify the actual
encryption scheme of Hornbuckle to get the encryption scheme of claim 25. Therefore, on
this point the Examiner has not met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness and we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 25-30.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007