Appeal No. 2006-3120
Application No. 09/944,695
(1) decrypts the symmetric key with the printer’s private key;
(2) decrypts the print data with the symmetric key; and
(3) prints the image based on the print data.
[Mazzagatte, Fig. 8, steps S802-S814; col. 11, line 40 – col. 12, line 3; emphasis
added].
Here again, the print data is encrypted with the symmetric key that is, in
turn, encrypted with the printer’s public key. As we indicated with respect to the
embodiment of Fig. 7A, the public key (i.e., the printer’s public key) indirectly
encrypts the print data via the symmetric key. Likewise, the printer’s private key
decrypts the print data indirectly via the symmetric key.
Turning to claim 12, the claim merely calls for, in pertinent part, encrypting
documents to be printed with a public key and decrypting the documents with a
private key corresponding to the public key. The scope and breadth of the claim
language simply does not preclude Mazzagatte’s indirect public/private key
encryption and decryption of print data. Although appellant argues that the user
does not control the private key in Mazzagatte and therefore such a system is not
as secure as that of the claimed invention, appellant’s arguments are simply not
commensurate with the scope of the claim.
In short, the embodiments of both Fig. 7A and 8 of Mazzagatte actually
anticipate at least claim 12. Nevertheless, obviousness rejections can be based
on references that happen to anticipate the claimed subject matter. In re Meyer,
599 F.2d 1026, 1031, 202 USPQ 175, 179 (CCPA 1979). Moreover, in affirming
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013