Appeal 2007-0644
Application 10/081,500
invalid under §103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741,
82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397.
We also disagree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding of a
motivation to combine the references is not “clear and particular.” The
finding is based on the express teachings of Hara; i.e., adding bits to a
message facilitates encryption, especially types of encryption suited for
high-speed transmission of data. Appellant’s point may be there is no
teaching in the references to add bits to a challenge, before encryption and
transmission, for the particular purpose taught by Appellant. We can agree
to the extent that Appellant’s purpose is not in the applied prior art, but the
reason for the combination need not be the same as that of Appellant’s. “In
determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither
the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.”
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741-42, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
The Examiner adds Tsudik to the teachings of Andersson and Hara in
the § 103(a) rejection of claims 6 through 10. Instant claim 6 recites that the
method of claim 1 further includes the user obtaining a digest of the
combined spoiler and challenge before the step of encrypting. Appellant
argues (Br. 10-11) that nothing in column 3, line 59 to column 4, line 11 of
Tsudik discloses or suggests the digest recitation.
Tsudik in the referenced section describes securing information by
encrypting the information using a “secret one-way function.” The one-way
function may be a prior art message digest algorithm, according to column 5,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013