... / " . ,. . . .. , . ~ 

. ~ 

REF ID:A272:il0 

• 

IN THE UUT~·::::; STAT;zs PA'rBJr? O.l?FICE 

In Re A?pl1cat1on ot. 

iiILLIAM f'. FR 1l1.DMAN 

f.erlal No. 682,0~6 

Filed Jul1 25, 1933 

Title: CRYPTOGRAPHIC SYSTEM 

RESPOrt~:E 

_______ .... __ 

I 

:> ... : 

:;iv. 53 

Room b80'7 

In re1ponae to the Otf1o1al Lett~1r of :51 JanU&l'J' 

1942 the applicant .;1ealrea that reoons1der·:it1on be given to 

tho rejection or the metho.i claims on the ;;round that tbq 

are improper in torm. 

~•c1a1ona o1tedz 

In re Ernat ( GCPA) 71 Ped (2d) lo9. 

earnegle steel co. v Cambrla Iron ~iorka 185 us 40~, 424 

Hall Y Montgomer7 Ward and Co. 63 1..l~~PQ 1141 122• 

The Examlner ev1Jentl.7 objeota partlcularl7 to 

the lntroductor7 clause or the methOd clalm on tbe ground 

it aeta forth the atru.oture at some length on wh1oh th4t 

method la pertoMD9d• 

1be Patent otrtce FoarJ ot Appeals ha.i occaalon to 

pass on that e1tuat1on, and the •thoci claim quotetl 1n the 

laat eltf~d ease recites an 1gn1ter and burner ~n.1 tm t7pe 

ot 1;~n1 ter on which the motbOd 11 performed. The claim 

quoterl bJ the court ls sa 1·1 in the d.eolalon to ha•e been 

allowed bf the Board ot Appeals. 

'l'b• examlner cites Cochrane • Deener, 94 u.s. '780· 

Botrnv. th~) Court ot Customs anl Patent Appeals has had 

oeoaal~n to mention that tb1s dec1a1on la not to be construed 

11t•P•ll;yJ See In re Eftlet (·:;CPA) '11 Ped (2d) 169' 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-13-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 
REF ID:A272710 e 

•Inaotar as the language quoted (from 

COcbrane v .i.Atttner) implies that a valid method 

claim relate to a treatment or some material. 

we are not 1n accord therewith. rJhtle the 

;.1ec1a1on 1n the case or Gochrane v .eener. 

94 u.f:. '780• a• L• Ed. 139, rr&'f seem to support 

such a boldin~b later dec1s ions or the fupre• 

Court are not 10 limited.• 

1:.iec1s1011• ot the court of customs and Patent Appeals 

are oontrolllng ao tar as the Patent orr1ce ls concerned• 

and 1mpl1cat1ona 1n other declslona that "materials" muat 

be acteJ upon before there 1a a valid process cannot prevs11. 

In carneg1e Steel Co v Cambria Iron Works• supra. 

the t.upreme court ar;>;>roved or process claims ani made tbe 

notation that a process coulJ not be anticipated by structure 

merely capable or praot1c1ng the proceaa. Eowever, it waa 

ment1oneJ that some processes oould be carried out menl7 

with a pair or human hands. Suob a process must be 1n the 

nature or th& 1ntang1ble such aa s1gnal1ng, c1pher1ng a 

mesaage 6 taking aim• etc •• 11' 1t oan be performe,;i morel1 with 

hu?C&n hand.a alonth 

The rejection for undue multtplle1ty has apparently 

been abandoned tut 1f not it la traverseJ for the roaaona or 

Claim 40 W'~ s rejected on the 2;rounJ. the amendment. 

did not set forth the r~aaona aupport1ng allowance or th• 

claim. 

The argument d1J. atate, however. that claim 40 

was submitted aa patentable for the same reasons as the man7 

other allowed apparatus olalae. This ·vn1s suff1o1ent,, see 

Ex parte Beard• 1'78 o.G. ~19. It 1a clear that the prior 

-a-
, . .. 

REF ID:A27ji10 

., 

art dO•• not include all ot the apparatue or tt-J.1 olaS... 

part1culal"lJ the combination ot the wheels ani 1c97board 

arranged to cipher whlch are a1s;>0aed aa to uncipber a 

JHllSZ\ge repeated back· 

Claim 40 ls retained in the oase wt:lch 1s and will 

continue to be prosecuted under the three-year rule• 

Raapeottully submitted• 

J ~ t<t::) #-; w • . 

w111s.a. D· na11, 

Attorne7 for Applicant.