Appeal No. 2006-0655
Application 09/459,287
receiving device, the examiner has properly relied upon the
teachings of Traw relating to authentication between a content
source and content sink in an authentication since, as argued,
authentication in Traw is noted by the examiner as being
independent of the digital data per se. The significant teaching
value of Traw, as argued by the examiner at page 4 of the answer,
is the motivation such as to prevent copying and/or misuse of the
data during transfer, which feature is consistent with the
disclosed and broadly claimed features of independent claim 1 on
appeal.
Separately, appellants’ commentary with respect to Traw at
the bottom of page 5 of the brief appears to be an incomplete
consideration of the teaching value of this reference. Moreover,
the bulk of the arguments actually made against the first stated
rejection occur in the paragraph at the middle of page 6 which
merely focuses upon Traw as compared to disclosed
capabilities. There are no comments here directed to the
teaching value of Steinberg. In fact the appellants appear to
argue only the disclosed invention which is unpersuasive as to
not only combinability but also patentability of the subject
matter broadly recited in independent claim 1 on appeal.
As to appellants’ comments with respect to Steinberg, they
are only made at the middle of page 5. Our review of this
indicates as well significant incomplete consideration of the
teaching value of Steinberg. Although we have indicated earlier
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007