Appeal No. 2001-0331 Page 15
Application No. 09/122,982
computer as an email message.” Similarly, claim 25 does not
require that the apparatus includes a mechanism automatically
“configured to store the native copy of the data in a file;
configured to convert the file into a format that can be emailed;
and configured to send the converted file to the escrow computer
as an email message.” We find that the automatic back-up in the
word processor programs referred to by the examiner will
automatically make a back-up copy of a file. Appellant does not
dispute the examiner's assertion that automatic file backup
programs are known. The apparatuses of the references will carry
out the recited limitations when directed to do so by the user.
In addition, we agree with the examiner that a computer receiving
the e-mail can be considered as being an escrow computer.
Appellant has not argued any specific definition of an escrow
computer that would not be met by a back-up computer. In sum, we
find that appellant's assertion that the claims recite code or a
mechanism for "automatically" storing the native copy of the data
in a file; converting the file into a format that can be emailed;
and sending the converted file to the escrow computer as an email
message,” to be inconsistent with the language of independent
claims 13 and 25. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 13 and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007