Appeal No. 2001-0331 Page 18
Application No. 09/122,982
required to operate the transmission of the email
message, as required by the cited art.
For the reasons set forth, supra, with respect to claims 13 and
25, we find that claim 37 does not recite how the routine is
initiated and does not preclude user intervention to operate the
transmission of an e-mail message. We additionally find that the
automatic file back-up of the word processing programs referred
to by the examiner will periodically initiate a routine for
backing up data at specific intervals. The data in the format
used by the word processing program will be in native format, and
will inherently be stored in a file. Upon e-mailing the file,
the file will be converted into a format that can be e-mailed.
The computer the data is e-mailed to can be considered a backup
computer. Thus, we find that the prior art references to Hoffman
and Netscape 2 establish a prima facie case of obviousness that
has not been successfully been rebutted by appellant, and that
the reference to Pegasus is cumulative. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 37 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