Appeal No. 2006-3120
Application No. 09/944,695
a multiple-reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Board may rely on less
than the total number of references relied on by the examiner. In re Bush, 296
F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266- 67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455,
458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, the teachings of
DeBry are merely cumulative to those found in Mazzagatte.
Notwithstanding our conclusion that Mazzagatte anticipates at least claim
12, we nonetheless agree with the examiner that the skilled artisan would have
reasonably combined the teachings of DeBry with Mazzagatte essentially for the
reasons stated by the examiner. We add, however, that DeBry expressly
teaches that the server can (1) encrypt the file using the printer’s public key, (2)
send the encrypted file to the printer; and (3) decrypt the file using the
“appropriate key” [DeBry, col. 10, lines 18-22]. Although DeBry does not
specifically indicate what constitutes the “appropriate” key for decrypting the file
encrypted using the printer’s public key, we nonetheless conclude that using the
printer’s corresponding private key would have been readily apparent to the
skilled artisan in light of the collective teachings of the references.
Moreover, we disagree with appellant’s assertion regarding the lack of
motivation to combine the references. Although appellant argues that there must
be a suggestion of motivation in the references [see brief, page 7], it is well
settled that the motivation to combine references need not be expressly stated in
the prior art references. Rather, a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine
references may be found in the knowledge of the skilled artisan or from the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013