Appeal No. 2003-1533
Application No. 09/566,910
found all of appellants' arguments as to Group I unpersuasive, we
will sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and the claims
grouped therewith, claims 3 through 6.
With regard to the second group of claims, representative
claim 7 is similar to claim 1 except that the selected data is
copied to a remote location rather than to a storage resource
connected to the Internet. Appellants' sole argument refers to
the reason set forth for Group I, that there is no motivation to
combine the references. As we have found appellants' arguments
as to the combinability of the two references unpersuasive supra,
we will sustain the rejection of claims 7, 9 through 14, 16
through 18, 25, and 27 through 31.
Representative claim 2 for Group III recites that the second
partition of the hard drive is hidden from a user of the computer
system. The examiner writes (Answer, page 4) that "Kikinis
discloses that the second partition of the hard drive is hidden
from a user of the computer system (inherent in the art)." The
examiner explains (Answer page 6) that the second partition being
hidden is inherent "because if the second partition (backup
partition or drive) is visible to the operating system, erroneous
accesses could corrupt the integrity of the files or can lead to
random system crashes and irregularities." Appellants point out
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007