Appeal No. 2006-0910
Application No. 09/725,821
1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore
Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
These showings by the Examiner are an essential part of complying
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
appealed independent claims 1 and 14 based on the combination of
Ober, Childs, Schneier, Turner, and Batcher, Appellants assert that
the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness since proper motivation for the proposed combination of
references has not been established. After reviewing the arguments
of record from Appellants and the Examiner, we are in general
agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs.
The Examiner proposes (Answer, page 4) to provide a hardware
implementation of the hash algorithm processing device of Ober as
modified by Childs and Schneier by utilizing the selective input
multiplexing teachings of Turner and the generalized use of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007