Appeal 2007-0930
Application 10/014,763
1 The Examiner contends that the rejection is proper. The Examiner’s
2 Answer does not provide a direct response to Appellants’ contention.
3 Thus, Appellants’ contention presents us with the issue of whether the
4 Examiner has established that one would be motivated to combine Aura and
5 Micali to arrive at the claimed invention.
6 FINDINGS OF FACT
7 Facts relating to the first issue:
8 Appellants’ Specification discusses portable, “lightweight” devices
9 having limited computational resources. Appellants’ Specification further
10 identifies that these limited resources prevent effective implementation of
11 well known digital signature protocols. (Specification 1). Appellants’
12 Specification on page 7 discusses computationally efficient protocols such as
13 Merkle and Lamport signatures which are “fast” and suitable for lightweight
14 devices. (Specification 7). We find Appellants’ Specification provides no
15 discussion of metrics used to determine the computational efficiency of a
16 signature protocol, or how it relates to a measure of the resources of the
17 device. Further, Appellants’ Specification provides very little insight as to
18 what is considered an effective implementation of a digital signature using a
19 lightweight machine. On page 1 of Appellants’ Specification is a discussion
20 of an example of what is apparently a non-effective implementation. In this
21 example Appellants discuss a profile which can take thirty seconds to
22 perform on a portable device such as a telephone.
23 Facts relating to the second issue:
24 Appellants’ Specification states on page 5:
25 Although illustrated in this embodiment as a mobile telephone
26 or PDA, the user device 102 may alternatively be implemented as a
27 desktop or portable personal computer, a wearable computer, a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013