Appeal No. 2001-0331 Page 16
Application No. 09/122,982
We turn next to dependent claims 14-16 and 26-28. Each of
these claims deal with encryption/decryption of data. Appellant
asserts (brief, page 8) that the references do not show the
specific limitations of these claims. We make reference to our
findings, supra, with respect to the teachings of Hoffman
concerning encryption, and public and private keys, and affirm
the rejection of claims 14-16 and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as suggested by Hoffman. We find Netscape 2 and Pegasus to be
cumulative.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 21 and 33. Each of
these claims recite that the data is one or more files of web
pages. From the disclosure of Hoffman of using internet e-mail
for electronic documents (col. 57, lines 21 and 22), we find that
Hoffman teaches that the data files can be web files.
Accordingly, we find that Hoffman teaches or suggests the
language of claims 21 and 33, and that the references to Netscape
2 and Pegasus are cumulative. The rejection of claims 21 and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is therefore affirmed.
We turn next to claims 22 and 34. These claims recite that
the codes or mechanisms that store invoke a tar command to
package the data into one file. Although the use of tar commands
are old, and Hoffman discloses sending document text in one or
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007