Appeal No. 2006-0775
Application No. 09/356,940
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that a
random password has advantages over a non-random password, the examiner’s rejection lacks a
cogent explanation as to how the applied references teach or would have suggested to the skilled
artisan the use of a random number generator to generate a password as well as access a
password. As indicated supra, McIntosh uses a random number generator during access of a
password, whereas He and Noll only use a random number generator during the generation of a
password. If the proposed modification is made, will the random number generator be used
during the generation as well as the access phases of operation in McIntosh? More importantly,
will the modified McIntosh device operate as it was originally intended to operate? Thus, in the
absence of a convincing line of reasoning for applying the teachings of He and Noll to McIntosh,
we hereby agree with the appellants that the examiner has resorted to impermissible hindsight to
demonstrate the obviousness of claims 45 through 48 and 53. The obviousness rejections of
claims 45 through 48 and 53 are reversed.
Turning next to the obviousness rejections of claims 33 through 44, 49 through 52 and
54, we find that appellants have not presented any arguments to refute the examiner’s
obviousness positions (pages 19 through 25 of the July 9, 2003 Office Action). In view of
appellants’ grouping of the claims (brief, page 4), and appellants’ failure to present separate
patentability arguments for the noted claims, we hereby sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 33 through 44, 49 through 52 and 54.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007