Appeal No. 2001-0331 Page 17
Application No. 09/122,982
more parts, we find no teaching or suggestion, and none has been
brought to our attention by the examiner, that would have
suggested to an artisan packaging data into one file.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 22 and 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 23 and 35. These
claims recite that the code or mechanism that converts the file
to a format that can be e-mailed invokes a uuencode command. We
take notice of the fact that the uuencode command is old and well
known for converting files into a format for e-mailing. In view
of the teachings of Hoffman, Netscape 2, and Pegasus of sending
filed by e-mail, we find that an artisan would have been
motivated to use the uuencode command which is commonly used for
formatting files for e-mail5.
We turn next to independent claim 37. Appellant asserts
(Brief, page 12) that:
In claim 37, a method periodically initiates a
routine for periodically initiating a routine for
backing up data at specified intervals, stores a
native copy of the data in a file, converts the
file into a format that can be emailed, and sends
the converted file to an escrow computer as an email
message. The cited art fails to disclose or suggest
these steps. Moreover, user intervention is not
5 Microsoft Press, Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, 1997. A copy of
the relevant page is attached to this decision.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007