Appeal 2007-0930
Application 10/014,763
1 Initially, we note that of the group of claims included in this rejection,
2 only claims 8 and 11 recite a limitations directed to a public key. As
3 discussed supra, in Aura’s system the keys Ki are kept secret and not
4 transmitted. We do not find that the Examiner’s proffered rationale alone
5 provides sufficient evidence to support a finding that one would be
6 motivated to include public keys especially given the secrecy of the keys in
7 Aura. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8
8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claims
9 12 through 16, and 18, the Examiner has not identified where in the evidence
10 of record the limitations of these claims are taught or suggested. Thus, we
11 can not find that the Examiner’s rejection of these claims is based upon
12 substantial evidence and we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
13 claims 12 through 16, and 18.
14 CONCLUSION
15 We find for the Examiner in that we find that claims 2 through 8 are
16 indefinite as being ambiguous and that Aura anticipates claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9,
17 10, 17, and 19 through 25. We find for Appellants in that we do not find
18 that Aura anticipates claims 3 through 5 or 17, and we do not find that the
19 combination of Aura and Micali make obvious the limitations of claims 8,
20 11 through 16, and 18. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
21
22
23
24
25
26
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013