Ex Parte Seroussi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 17, 2012

09916785 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte GADIEL SEROUSSI, MARK TAYLOR SMITH,
and MICHAEL BAER
_____________

Appeal 2009-010954
Application 09/916,785
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M KOHUT, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

Per curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-010954
Application 09/916,785

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 10 through 13.
.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a random number generator that generates
numbers based upon measurements of environmental quantities. See pages
2 and 3 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 10 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below:
10. A random number generation device comprising:
an environmental sensor that generates digitally encoded sensor
values;

a compressor that receives the digitally encoded sensor values
generated by the environmental sensor and compresses the received
digitally encoded sensor values to generate a compressed data stream;
a monitor that receives the compressed data stream and
monitors the compressed data stream to determine whether or not
sufficient data has been received in the compressed data stream to
generate a next random number;
a random number generator that receives data from the
compressed data stream and outputs random numbers; and
a blocking switch controlled by the monitor to block output of a
next random number by the random number generator when sufficient
data to generate the next random number has not been received in the
compressed data stream to generate a next random number.

Appeal 2009-010954
Application 09/916,785

3

REFERENCES
Saints US 6,430,170 B1 Aug. 6, 2002
Donald E. Eastlake 3
rd
Stephen D. Crocker, and Jeffrey I. Schiller
(Eastlake) Randomness Recommendations for Security, RFC 1750,
pp. 1-30, 1994.
Nick Strobel, Electromagnetic Radiation,
http://www.astronomynotes.com/light/s1.htm, last accessed
5/15/2012, pp.1-28.
Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 3
rd
ed., 1997, Microsoft Press,
pp. 107, 396, 426, 510.
Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 12
th
ed., 1997, Flatiron
Publishing, p. 156.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 10 through 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a ) over Eastlake and Saints. Answer 4-10.
1

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 4 through 10 of the Brief and pages 4
through 16 of the Reply Brief,
2
that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
April 28, 2009.
2
Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief dated April
30, 2007 and Reply Brief dated July 7, 2009.
Appeal 2009-010954
Application 09/916,785

4

through 13 is in error.
3
Appellants’ arguments present us with the issue: did
the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Eastlake and Saints
teaches a blocking switch to block the output of a next random number as
recited in independent claim 10?
4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We
concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Eastlake and Saints teaches a blocking switch to block the
output of a next random number. Independent claim 10 recites a blocking
switch which is controlled by a monitor of the compressed data stream that
blocks output of a next random number when sufficient data has not been
received by the data stream. The Examiner relies upon Saints’ discussions,
in columns 9 and 10, of a pool of random numbers to meet this limitation.
Answer 7, 20, and 24. We disagree. While Saints teaches that the pool will
not be considered ready for use until a counter (used to advance the pool
buffer) reaches its end (col. 9, ll. 32-33), we find no discussion of a switch or
any mechanism to block output as claimed. Thus, Appellants have
persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 10. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 through 13.

3
Appellants’ Brief also mentions a rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112
second paragraph. However, as the Examiner has not presented the rejection
in the Answer, there is no rejection before us for review.
4
We note Appellants’ arguments present additional issues, however as this
issue is dispositive, we do not reach the other issues presented.

Appeal 2009-010954
Application 09/916,785

5

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10 through 13 is
reversed.

REVERSED

ELD