Appeal 2007-0930
Application 10/014,763
1
2 ANALYSIS
3 Analysis relating to the first issue:
4 Claim 2 recites “a first digital signature protocol having a
5 computational efficiency compatible with computational resources of the
6 user device.” As discussed supra, we do not find that Appellants’
7 Specification provides a metric for computational efficiency. Appellants’
8 Specification alludes to this being a measure of time that is taken to perform
9 a calculation. However, Appellants’ Specification does not provide an
10 objective standard by which it can be determined whether a computational
11 efficiency is compatible with the resources of a device. As such,
12 Appellants’ Specification provides no insight as to the actual metes and
13 bounds of the claim, but rather relies upon the subjective criteria of whether
14 something is “fast.” Thus, we concur with the Examiner’s holding that
15 claim 2 is indefinite as it does not delineate the scope of the invention using
16 language that adequately notifies the public of the patentee’s rights.
17 Claim 3 recites, “second digital signature protocol having a
18 computational efficiency lower than that of the first digital signature.”
19 Claim 3 is dependent upon claim 2, and thus contains the same
20 indefiniteness problem as claim 2. This indefiniteness is further
21 compounded by the claim 3 recitation of the “computational efficiency being
22 lower” as this implies that a value is assigned to computational efficiency.
23 However as discussed above, we find insufficient evidence to show that the
24 public is notified as to how “computational efficiency” is measured, and as
25 such the scope of the claim. Thus, similar to our holding with respect to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013